1 / 68

Oak Wood Secondary

Oak Wood Secondary. Review of Pupil Progress 2011 - 2012. Intro.

palila
Download Presentation

Oak Wood Secondary

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Oak Wood Secondary Review of Pupil Progress 2011 - 2012

  2. Intro • The ‘quadrangulation’ process enables the analysis of different forms of data, ranging from ‘hard’ or ‘raw’ data (such as comparisons against National Progression data) to ‘soft’ or ‘contextualised’ data (such as attendance). The aim throughout is to structure the data conversation answering the “so what?” combining information from a range of sources, and ultimately providing evidence to support teacher judgement on progression • The plan is that this can then be used to meet with external bodies, report to governors and that eventually subject coordinators will use the same template for their analysis of subject data

  3. 1. Achievement compared against National Data (e.g. National Progression Guidance, CASPA) 2. Progression compared against school’s expectation Overall judgement and Action 4. Professional judgment including context of year 3. Achievement compared against own targets and previous rate of progress Quadrangulation Outstanding Good Satisfactory Inadequate

  4. The Process • Quads 1 and 2 are for analysis of ‘hard’ data and so are purely statistical e.g. “80% of pupils progressed as expected in line with National Progression guidance” • Quads 3 and 4 are for analysis of ‘contextualised’ data and if relevant how this affects pupil progress. As such there is some element of judgement based upon professional knowledge of the context, • The ‘quadrangulation’ process moves through the quads in order. • However before you can determine how well a group / individual pupil has progressed against the school’s expectations you first need to calculate the group’s / individual’s progression. Analysis of pupils progression will then inform the benchmark for the school’s expectations of what is good / outstanding progress which takes into consideration National Progression Guidance

  5. National Progression Guidance

  6. National Progression Guidance

  7. Warwickshire guidance criteria for describing pupil progress at the end of each year

  8. Warwickshire guidance criteria for describing pupil progress over a Key Stage

  9. These are figures generated with consideration to Oak Wood Secondary’s achievement data and with respect to National Progression Guidance

  10. Whole School Over arching viewpoint of whole school context: • Achievement • Progression • Individual Education Plans • Impact of behaviour and attendance upon progression There is no National Progression Guidance for students in FE, however we will use the Warwickshire guidance on progression and our own Oak Wood Expectations which are both based upon progression guidance for KS4

  11. Whole School Progression Compared Against National Expectations Narrative: Using CASPA comparisons, 100% of students progressed as expected or better with nearly 87% of students progressing above the CASPA expectation. Analysis of student progression data shows a whole school average of 0.9 levels per year which equates to KS3 = 2.7, KS4 = 1.8 levels across the Key Stage. UQ progress is KS3 – 2, KS4 – 1 therefore suggesting Outstanding progress Close analysis of the data shows 3 pupils for whom progress was inadequate: “Pupil 1” – complex profound and multiple learning difficulties, extended stay in intensive care on a ventilator following an operation and now requires suction (attendance 68%) “Pupil 2” – severe social emotional difficulties, close involvement with social care and health throughout year, reduced and personalised timetable introduced in consultation with professionals (attendance 48.1%) , has now chosen to attend sixth form. 3rd Pupil – complex learning difficulties and mental health concerns. Increased anxieties through year culminated in multi-professional involvement, medication review and increase, and successful application for funding to provide 2:1 staffing to manage behaviours Traffic light graph for core subjects progression

  12. Key Stage 2 - 4 Progression Narrative: Analysis of KS2-4 progress using CASPA comparisons shows that almost all pupils make above expected progress with all bar 2 pupils make above expected progress. The 2 pupils who only made expected progress, both progressed from P7 to NC1, Closer analysis of data shows that nearly all pupils make at least good progress from end of Key Stage 2 to the end of Key Stage 4 with 50% of pupils making Outstanding progress when compared against National Progression Guidance. Data shows that pupils make good to Outstanding progress in relation to their starting points and when compared against other schools nationally pupils at Oak Wood make Outstanding progress.

  13. FE Progression Narrative: There is no Progression Guidance for students in FE, however we will use expectations for KS4 - UQ progression being 1 level Analysis of KS4-FE progress using CASPA comparisons shows that the vast majority of students make above expected progress with all bar 1 pupils make above expected progress. Closer analysis of data shows that the overwhelming majority of students make Outstanding progress from end of Key Stage 4 to the end of FE with 93% of students making Outstanding progress when compared against National Progression Guidance. Data shows that students in FE make Outstanding progress in relation to their starting points, and when compared against other schools nationally pupils at Oak Wood make Outstanding progress.

  14. Key Stage Progression Compared Against National Expectations Narrative: Analysis of CASPA data for students in Key Stages shows a difference between departments;KS3=94%, KS4=86%, FE=95% students exceeding CASPA expected rate of progress, however this suggests that all departments are making Outstanding progress. Closer analysis of key stage data, comparing against Progression Guidance, shows that in KS3 93% of pupils make at least Good progress with 57% making Outstanding. In KS4 83% of pupils make Outstanding progress whereas in FE 79% of students make Outstanding progress. This difference needs further investigation, however there is a changing pupil profile within KS3 and the amount of progression per year is improving (09-10 0.4 levels, 10-11 0.7 levels, 11-12 1.0 levels) This will be further investigated through subject focus. Though when extrapolated across the whole school this evens out as pupils make Good progress, however a large majority of pupils (73%) make Outstanding progress and allied to CASPA analysis this is Outstanding

  15. ASD Whole School Progress Compared Against School Expectation This will hyperlink to the Excel ‘super tool’ to demonstrate individual progress against own targets for the year.

  16. Pathway Awards / Qualifications - FE 2011 - 2012 • Narrative: • Entry Level • ASDAN FE Level Up • 5 students achieved Level 1 (100%) • 6 students achieved Challenge Award (100%) • 4 students achieved an internal school award (100%) • Pathways Analysis: • All bar one students achieved 100% (2010-11 84%) of targeted Units. The one students who didn’t spent 2/3 of year educated off-site (residential provision) • Issues – with increased credits, more paperwork and therefore need to re-evaluate appropriateness of some entries / certification Traffic light graph for core subjects progression

  17. Pathway Awards / Qualifications – KS4 2011 - 2012 Narrative: Entry Level ASDAN PSD 6 pupils achieved Entry 2 award (100%) Traffic light graph for core subjects progression

  18. Analysis of Reading tests • KS3: • Accuracy - 79% improved, 21% remained stable, 0% lower (2010-11 61%, 17%, 22%) • Comprehension – 76% improved, 24% remained stable, 0% lower (2010-11 75%, 6%, 19%) • Narrative: Baselining improved for pupils starting school, 1-1 teaching impacting, clear impact of teaching reading, new resources supporting pupils • Action: Time for TA responsible to meet with other staff regularly to share information and strategies, focus support for pupils not making expected progress, • KS4: • Accuracy – 42% improved, 33% remained stable (2010-11 47%, 10%, 43%) • Comprehension – 42% improved, 8% remained stable (2010-11 48%, 0%, 48%, 4% no score) • Narrative: Morning reading introduced, group reading, increased precision teaching, higher proportion of pupils remaining stable. Test isn’t consistent in scoring for range of needs / issues and not appropriate for increasing number, precision teaching supporting progression however need to support transfer of skills to reading prose • Actions: increase 1-1 reading, develop sight vocabulary • FE: • Accuracy - 40% improved, 20% remained stable (2010-11 55%, 9%, 17%, 19% no score) • Comprehension – 40% improved, 5% remained stable (34%, 29%, 15%, 22% no score) • Narrative: precision teaching introduced, developed cloze procedure to improve comprehension, for higher scoring readers the students were unable to show progress, reading tests not appropriate for increasing number of students • Actions: Investigate more suitable reading scheme for emergent readers in FE. Look at ‘reading’ for less able students

  19. Analysis of Maths tests • KS3: • 73% improved, 19% remained stable, 8% lower (2010-11 65%.20%,15%) • Narrative: new maths test that celebrates small steps, baselining in September (issue for pupils who arrive mid-year) • Actions: All pupils >P8 will be baselined, ensure pupils that enter midyear are baselined, continued emphasis on group work and Intended Learning Outcomes • KS4: • 34% improved, 27% remained stable, 35% were lower, 4% registered no score (2010-11 56%, 20%, 24%) • Narrative: Baseline assessments introduced Sept 2011, above predicted levels in WJEC exams, real opportunities to use maths in place but need increasing, new tests introduced to measure smaller steps, testing becoming an issue for increasing number of pupils • Actions: ensure activities fully differentiated, • FE: • 92.5% improved, 3.75% remained stable, 3.75% were lower (2010-11 43%, 51%, 6%) • Narrative: increased amount of functional maths taught • Actions: focused teaching for specific groups

  20. ASD Whole School Achievement Compared Against School Expectation Narrative: Attainment – Analysis of targets set at the start of 2011-12 shows that 92% of targets were met or exceeded which is outstanding. Closer analysis shows that 23% of targets were exceeded at an average of 0.2 levels per student, which is on average within 1 sublevel (compared to last year; 69% exceeding targets by an average of 0.5 levels). Average targeted progression was 0.3 levels per year, which is not challenging enough, and therefore there remains some concerns regarding setting challenging and aspirational targets. However, targets were met / not met / exceeded at a ratio of 69/8/23, compared to 2010-11 of 29/2/69, which suggests that teachers were more accurate in their target setting. Actual student progression was outstanding and analysis of the targets shows that the setting process was much more rigorous. The introduction of sublevels for P levels and NC levels has supported teachers to make more accurate predictions for progression. However ongoing work with the progression guidance materials will support rigorousness This will hyperlink to the Excel ‘super tool’ to demonstrate individual progress against own targets for the year.

  21. Whole School Contextual Data • Narrative for contextualisation and consideration of further soft data e.g. physical interventions, consideration of absence records, social contexts of individuals etc. These can have dramatic impact when the ‘vulnerable group’ consists of a very small number of children. Especially valuable when using the ‘quadrangulation’ to scrutinise individual child achievement • Narrative • Baseline Data validated by Local Authority • External moderation of work validates the judgements given by teachers when assessing work • Introduction of professional judgement based upon all evidence alongside existing systems supports accurate judgement rather than relying upon tick list • Introduction of sublevels for attainment levels supports more accurate predictions for progression, and the introduction of progression guidance during the year for teachers has supported more rigorous target setting for 2012-13 and therefore will be able to be analysed next year. • Progression in KS4 was slightly below that of the other key stages however 74% of pupils made outstanding progress (the threshold for KS judgement is 75%). There is a higher proportion of pupils on NC levels in KS4 and there is little progression guidance for pupils with SEN on NC levels • There was a focus on challenging the more able pupils following 2010-11 data analysis (reflected in improvement in achievement data) • There was a focus on the support for girls following analysis of 2010-11 data and this has had an impact on their progress as now achieving at least as well as the boys. Lunchtime clubs, focus on ensuring resources available, specific sessions for girls have all had an impact • The Pastoral Support Manager has continued to work closely with families and external agencies to increase attendance and to support pupils and families. This has had an impact on achievement for low attendees and also when deeper analysis is carried out the overall school attendance has improved.

  22. Oak Wood Secondary School Destinations 2012-13 Year 11 – 14 leavers 12 pupils have joined Oak Wood Secondary School sixth form 2 pupils attending North Warwickshire and Hinckley College. 1 - Foundation Learning, 1 – Motor vehicle body and paint 100% have a positive post school placement and as they progressed to FE educational provision the school records will show 100%  Year 14 - 15 leavers 2 students attending North Warwickshire and Hinckley College on Foundation Learning 8 students attending Homefield College on day placements 2 students attending Homefield College on a residential placement 3 students have Social Care / Health placements Analysis The following actions have contributed to the 100% positive post school placement for year 14 students.  A structure in place to include a range of agencies in the annual review planning, and introduction of person centred planning .  Annual reviews being carried out early in the academic year.  Each student is allocated an appropriate lead agency, CSWP (careers), Social Care or Health who takes responsibility for the post school placement and is supported by the other agencies if required.  The school ensuring that regular meetings to update on progress are planned, carried out and actions reviewed.  The transition planning process within Warwickshire is now showing positive results. The planning includes:  A meeting at Oak Wood School, which includes representatives from the school, social care, health and CSWP, where all the year 8 students are discussed, information is shared and the lead agency assigned.  There is a North Transition Case Planning meeting held every 6 months, with senior representatives from the relevant agencies, where all held information is reviewed and updated as appropriate. This aids the students transition from children’s services to adult services as appropriate and ensures that the student is allocated an appropriate support worker.

  23. Analysis of IEP Objectives • Narrative • Whole School average of 2.9 IEP targets met • 91% of students (103 students) met their 3 targets • 7% of students (8 students) achieved 2 objectives • 2 pupils achieved 1 objective • 0 pupils achieved 0 objectives 1 objective achieved

  24. Analysis of IEP Objectives 2 objectives achieved

  25. Analysis of Behaviour • Narrative for contextualisation and consideration of further soft data e.g. physical interventions, consideration of absence records, social contexts of individuals etc. These can have dramatic impact when the ‘vulnerable group’ consists of a very small number of children. Especially valuable when using the ‘quadrangulation’ to scrutinise individual child achievement • Behaviour – • Analysis of progress for 9 students with recorded physical interventions (PIs) show an average of 1.0 levels of progression compared to whole school 0.9, which is slightly above the school average, however within 1 sublevel, indicating that the impact upon learning is minimised and there is no significant impact upon student’s progress. • When looking at personal IEP targets for students with PIs –whole school = 2.9, students with PIs = 2.7, with no students achieving less than 2 objectives • Analysis of PIs throughout the year shows a clear downward trend throughout the year showing the impact of behavioural interventions. There were a couple of peaks at key times during the year, for example one student went into local authority care, and another went through a period of crisis and intensive multi-agency support was put in place.

  26. Analysis of Behaviour

  27. Analysis of Behaviour

  28. Analysis of Attendance • Narrative for contextualisation and consideration of further soft data e.g. physical interventions, consideration of absence records, social contexts of individuals etc. These can have dramatic impact when the ‘vulnerable group’ consists of a very small number of children. Especially valuable when using the ‘quadrangulation’ to scrutinise individual child achievement • Attendance – • Whole School Attendance for 2011-12 was 93.6% which is slightly below 2010–11 (93.8%) however please see last comment below • Attendance is above the previous Ofsted frameworks expectation for a special school of above 90% • Whole school attendance above school target of 93% • 29 students below school target, (13 KS3, 12 KS4, 4 FE) • Analysis of progression for this group shows an average of 0.9 levels compared to whole school 0.9, indicating that attendance does not have a measurable impact on progression. • 10 students had attendance below the threshold of 85%, average progression was 0.7 levels showing a slight difference compared to the whole school average (though within 1 sublevel), suggesting that there is an impact of the pupil’s attendance on their progression • All pupils achieved 3 IEP target except 2 – please see analysis of IEP objectives for info re Pupils 1 and 2 • 3 pupils (Pupil 1, 2 and 11) had attendance at 63%, 48.1% and 14.6% respectively. • Pupil 1 has PMLD and complex medical needs and spent a considerable time in intensive care on a ventilator following an operation and subsequently requires suctioning. • Pupil 2 has severe social difficulties and through close liaison with home and social care a reduced timetable and personalised curriculum was introduced. As such this student showed an improved attendance and has chosen to join our sixth form • Pupil 11 is a Traveller of Irish Heritage and has been moving around the country due to family bereavement etc. There has been a lot of liaison with the local authority EMTAS team with family support and meetings , as such the individual met targets set (both academic and personal IEP) • If the attendance for these 3 pupils are discounted the whole school attendance figure is 95% which is an improvement on last year and reflects the focus on attendance throughout the year

  29. Review of Whole School • Upper Quartile Progression: = KS3 – 2, KS4 -1 • Outstanding Progression: • KS3 ≥75% pupils >0.75 levels per year (above UQ progression) • KS4 ≥ 75% pupils >0.5 levels per year (above UQ progression) • (FE ≥ 75% pupils >0.5 levels per year) (above UQ progression)) • KS3: 93% of pupils >0.4 levels progress (57%>0.75) = 93% of pupils > 1.2 levels across KS3 (57%>2.25 levels) . Average 1 level = 3 across KS = Outstanding • KS4: 83% of pupils >0.5 levels progress = 83% of pupils >1 level progress across KS4 • FE: 79% >0.5 = 79% of pupils > 1 level progress across FE • KS4 and FE; Average of 0.8 levels = 1.6 levels across KS = Outstanding • Oak Wood Expects: Outstanding Progression= • KS3 > 75% pupils >2.1 levels across KS • KS4 > 75% pupils >1.2 levels across KS • (FE > 75% pupils >1.2 levels across KS • KS3: 93% of pupils >1.2 levels across KS3 (57%>2.25 levels) • KS4: 83% of pupils >1 level progress across KS4 • FE: 79% of pupils >1 level progress across FE • IEP • Whole School average of 2.9 IEP targets met out of 3 • 91% of pupils achieved all 3 objectives. ( 2010-11 89%) • Behaviour – • 9 pupils with recorded PIs show: • 1.0 levels of progress (whole school = 0.9) • Average of 2.7personal IEP targets met, slightly below whole school, but all achieved ≥2 • Pupils with behavioural challenges progress on average better than peers • Attendance – • Attendance for 2011– 2012 was 93.6% - above school target • 29 Pupils with attendance below school target of 93%: • 0.9 levels of progress, the same as whole school, and therefore measures in place support learning 92% of targets were met or exceeded 23% of targets were exceeded (2010-11 69%) Average target = 0.3 levels (2010-11 0.2) Targets exceeded by an average of 0.2 levels – much more rigorous than last year (0.5 levels) though shows need to continue with work towards using Progression Guidance to ensure challenging targets are set (Judgement reflects concerns with target setting process)

  30. Whole School • 1. Achievement compared against National Data • 2. Progression compared against school’s expectation • 3. Achievement compared against own targets and previous rate of progress • 4. Professional judgment including context of year Overall judgement =

  31. Action Plan for Whole School • Securing good and increasing number of outstanding lessons: • Focus – Differentiation – L&T styles, pace • Annual review objective setting for pupils with PMLD –rigorousness / robustness / relevance • Assessment – ensuring teachers are aware of ‘where child is at’ and their next steps in learning, using ongoing assessment strategies • Communication strategies - standardising key vocabulary and symbolisation, Developing early reading and writing skills • Reading and writing - Review teaching of reading to support reluctant and less able readers (link to communication) •  Review teaching of number to support using and applying • Develop systems for recording and reporting behaviour incidents to ensure timely interventions can be introduced to support pupils • (ongoing introduction of Progression Guidance materials)

  32. Vulnerable Groups Comparison of Vulnerable Groups as compared to whole school context: • Achievement • Progression • Individual Education Plans • Impact of behaviour and attendance upon progression

  33. Gender - Progression • Narrative: In general boys are over-represented in the school cohort. Against CASPA expectations 87% of boys and 90% of girls make above expected progress. • Analysis of progression data shows that girls are slightly out performing boys (a change from last year) however on average boys make only a slightly lower amount of progress of 0.8 levels (KS3- 2.4, KS4 -1.6), compared to girls on average 0.9 levels (KS3- 2.7, KS4 -1.8) • Boys: National = Outstanding, Oak Wood = Outstanding • Girls: National = Outstanding, Oak Wood = good • There is a very slight difference between the amount of progression between boys and girls, a difference across one year of an average of 0.1 which is not significant, however when extrapolated across the Key Stage this may be significant and therefore we need to be observant of this.

  34. FSM - Progression (pupils for whom we receive Pupil Premium Grant) Narrative: CASPA analysis shows that 85% of pupils who receive FSM (compared to 88% of those who do not) make above expected progress, and closer analysis of data shows that there is little or no significant difference in achievement between pupils who receive Free school meals and those that don’t. Pupils who receive FSM achieve on average 0.9 levels, same as the whole school average. Analysis of student progression data shows an average of 0.9 levels per year which equates to KS3 = 2.7, KS4 = 1.8 which compared against National Progression guidance (UQ = KS3 –2 levels, KS4 – 1 level) is Outstanding progress, and compared against Oak Wood Expectations is Outstanding (KS3 > 2.1, KS2 >1.2)

  35. LAC - Progression Narrative: Data suggests that students who are Looked After progress in line with the whole school average. CASPA data shows that 88% of pupils who are looked after make above expected progress. Closer analysis of the data shows that pupils who are Looked After make an average of 0.9 levels progress (whole school average = 0.9). Which would equate to KS3 = 2.7, KS4 = 1.8 which is Outstanding progress compared against National Expectations and Oak Wood Expectations.

  36. EAL - Progression Narrative: CASPA data suggests that pupils with EAL make better progress than those with English as their first language (100% above expected compared to 88%). Analysis of progression data shows that pupils with EAL make an average of 0.7 levels of progress which is slightly less than the whole school average of 0.9, and equates to KS3 = 2.1, KS4 = 1.4 which compared against National Expectations is good; compared against Oak Wood Expectations is Outstanding. Closer analysis shows that 1 pupil regressed (Pupil 1) and therefore the extenuating circumstances for this individual need to be taken into consideration.

  37. Ethnicity - Progression Narrative: Pupils CASPA analysis shows that a higher proportion of pupils who are not white English make above expected progress. Closer data analysis for students whose ethnicity is other than White English / other / refused / info not given shows that there is no difference in progression; with the group making an average of 0.9 levels (compared to the whole school average of 0.9) which compared against National and Oak Wood Expectations is Outstanding progress. However analysis of the percentage of pupils making outstanding progress supports the CASPA analysis. Due to the relatively small numbers within the different ethnic groups we will consider differences on an individual level, however overall pupils who are other than White English / other / refused / info not given are not disadvantaged

  38. Vulnerable Groups ASD Narrative: Overall vulnerable groups are not disadvantaged at Oak Wood Secondary School, and in some cases out perform the whole school average. There is a slight difference between the performance of boys and girls – girls out performing boys compared to boys which will need further investigation to ensure all pupils continue to have the opportunities to progress. (Last year boys out performed girls and so we had a focus on ensuring girls had appropriate opportunities.)

  39. Vulnerable Groups - Achievement ASD Narrative: Attainment –Generally all groups meet / not meet / exceed targets at a similar level to the whole school, roughly 70/10/20 which show the same success for all groups of pupils and the same amount of rigour in the target setting process. This ratio is different for pupils with EAL (100% met) however this is a small group and suggests that teacher target setting was accurate. As mentioned within whole group analysis closer analysis of the target setting process is required to more accurately measure progression, and this is reflected in the judgement. This will hyperlink to the Excel ‘super tool’ to demonstrate individual progress against own targets for the year.

  40. Vulnerable Groups • Narrative for contextualisation and consideration of further soft data e.g. physical interventions, consideration of absence records, social contexts of individuals etc. These can have dramatic impact when the ‘vulnerable group’ consists of a very small number of children. Especially valuable when using the ‘quadrangulation’ to scrutinise individual child achievement • The group of pupils with EAL is small (4) however they have more profound and severe learning difficulties, and this contains Pupil A who has been discussed previously, and therefore skews the data • Behaviour • There is a relatively small number of pupils who have recorded physical interventions (9) and no vulnerable group are over represented (comparing ratios). As impact upon progress has already been discussed previously (no significant impact), any further analysis will be at an individual level • Attendance • There is a difference in attendance between the groups, and the attendance for pupils within the FSM and EAL standout, however the group of pupils who receive FSM contains Pupils 2 and 11 (attendance 48.1% & 14.6%) and EAL contains Pupil 1 (attendance 63% who also affects the figure for girl’s attendance), who have been discussed within the whole school narrative. (If these individual’s figures are removed then the attendance for FSM is 94.5% and EAL 97%)

  41. Vulnerable Groups • Narrative for contextualisation and consideration of further soft data e.g. physical interventions, consideration of absence records, social contexts of individuals etc. These can have dramatic impact when the ‘vulnerable group’ consists of a very small number of children. Especially valuable when using the ‘quadrangulation’ to scrutinise individual child achievement • IEP • Most groups meet at least 2.9 of their IEP targets, however the figures for those pupils who are EAL and have LAC are lower. • EAL – small group of 4 pupils which contains Pupil 1 who as discussed earlier achieved 1 target, the other 3 pupils achieved all 3 • LAC – group of 9 pupils. 7 achieved all 3 targets, 2 pupils (Pupils 3 and 8), please see Analysis of IEP Objectives above • Judgement • Due to the differences in data being down to individual presentations and not due to the vulnerable group

  42. Vulnerable Groups • 1. Achievement compared against National Data • 2. Progression compared against school’s expectation • 3. Achievement compared against own targets and previous rate of progress • 4. Professional judgment including context of year Judgement for Vulnerable Groups =

  43. Review of Vulnerable Groups • Upper Quartile Progression: = KS3 – 2, KS4 -1 • Outstanding Progression: • KS3 ≥75% pupils >0.75 levels per year (above UQ progression) • KS4 ≥ 75% pupils >0.5 levels per year (above UQ progression) • (FE ≥ 75% pupils >0.5 levels per year(above UQ progression)) • Boys = 75% make above UQ progress • Girls = 78% make above UQ progress • Free School Meals =75% make above UQ progress • Looked After Children = 83% make above UQ progress • English as an Additional Language = 75% of pupils make above UQ progress • Ethnicity = 84% make above UQ progress • Oak Wood Expects: Outstanding Progression= • KS3 > 75% pupils >2.1 levels across KS • KS4 > 75% pupils >1.2 levels across KS • (FE > 75% pupils >1.2 levels across KS) • Boys = 75% make outstanding progress • Girls = 77% make outstanding progress • Free School Meals = 80% make above outstanding progress • Looked After Children = 89% make outstanding progress • English as an Additional Language = 75% pupils make outstanding progress • Ethnicity = 82% make outstanding progress • Behaviour • impact upon progress has already been discussed previously (no significant impact), any further analysis will be at an individual level • Attendance • Closer analysis of attendance data shows no significant difference between groups and an improving trend • IEP • Most groups meet at least 2.9 of their IEP targets, and for those that don’t the data is skewed by the influence of one or two individuals, who through closer analysis it can be seen that being a member of a vulnerable group is not the determining factor in the targets being met. • Generally all groups meet / not meet / exceed targets at a similar level to the whole school, roughly 70/10/20 which show the same success for all groups of pupils and the same amount of rigour in the target setting process. • This ratio is different for pupils with EAL (100% met) however this is a small group and suggests that teacher target setting was accurate. • As mentioned within whole group analysis closer analysis of the target setting process is required to more accurately measure progression, and this is reflected in the judgement.

  44. Vulnerable Groups • 1. Achievement compared against National Data • 2. Progression compared against school’s expectation • 3. Achievement compared against own targets and previous rate of progress • 4. Professional judgment including context of year Judgement for Vulnerable Groups =

  45. Action Plan for Vulnerable Groups Continue with family support for vulnerable groups Continue with evaluation of curriculum to ensure meets the needs of all students Use of resources to promote creative learning and access to appropriate learning environment Head to investigate ways of closer multi-agency working with education psychologist in light of future Education Health and Care plans

  46. Groups of students by learning need and difficulty Comparison of Groups compared to whole school context: • Achievement • Progression • Individual Education Plans • Attendance • Impact of interventions There is a lack of clarity for guidance for pupils who are working in the National Curriculum Levels and the relation to progression across the Plevels. i.e. CASPA assign 1 point for P7-P8 progression and 1 point for NC1C to NC1B, this causes anomalies for science without a CBA breakdown, and for levels above NC2 when 1 level progression equals 3 points. Therefore we see 1 whole NC level whether NC1,2,3 etc as 1 level progression and will use DfE expectations of at least 2 levels progress, however Oak Wood Expectations for pupils with MLD are based upon our knowledge of SEN and are the same as SLD progression . We accept that due to the anomaly our pupils with MLD will not be seen to achieve as well, however will continue to use whatever measures are available

  47. Learning Disability - Progression • Narrative: All students make CASPA expected progress however the data shows that there is a slight difference in the amount of progression between the different learning needs; above expected progress PMLD = 100%, SLD = 83%, MLD = 93% which is Outstanding • Analysis of the data shows that there is no significant difference Analysis of progression data shows that: • PMLD = 2.7 levels across KS3 and 1.8 level across KS4 which is Outstanding compared against National and Oak Wood Expectations • SLD = 3 levels across KS3 and 2 levels across KS4 which is Outstanding compared against National and Oak Wood Expectations • MLD = 2.4 levels across KS3 (Outstanding compared against National and Oak Wood Expectations) and 1.6 levels across KS4 Outstanding compared against National Expectations and Oak Wood expectations

  48. Learning Disability - Progression Narrative: Closer analysis of the data shows that there is a slight difference in progression between the different groups: PMLD – Outstanding SLD – Outstanding MLD – Good (reflecting comments at start of section) However we need to take into consideration the comments made re guidance for pupils working at NC levels, as if we measured each sublevel as 1 level then our pupils would make outstanding progress. This needs to be a further discussion for data collection 2012-13.

  49. PMLD Narrative: The attainment of our pupils with PMLD shows that there is a range of needs within the school, and the number of pupils at he top of the centiles shows that the pupils have complex needs and there the provision needs take into account the specific needs. As discussed above the progression for this group is Outstanding (100% of pupils made above expected progress in CASPA)

  50. PMLD - Achievement ASD Narrative The proportion of targets met / not met / exceeded were broadly in line with the whole school average, there was a slightly higher percentage of targets met and lower exceeded, suggesting a little more accurate than for other learning difficulties. Analysis of targets set shows that 86% of targets set for pupils with PMLD were met. There was an average difference of 0.1 levels between the target and actual progression, which shows that the target setting process was more accurate than last year. There is still work to be done on target setting, however for pupils with PMLD the system is more robust and reflects the work carried out throughout the year, however the amount of target progress needs challenging This will hyperlink to the Excel ‘super tool’ to demonstrate individual progress against own targets for the year.

More Related