Managing Improving Primary Schools

Using Evidence-based Management

Colin Conner, Geoff Southworth

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781135708900
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Bildung
• Subtopic: Bildung Allgemein

A practical handbook which senior staff in primary schools can use to support their activities in evidence-based management. There is increased emphasis on teachers monitoring the quality of teaching and learning, the Teacher Training Agency's direction is towards teaching as a research-based profession, and there is greater need to assess learning gains and evaluate year-on-year progress in schools. For headteachers, deputy heads, managers, Key Stage coordinators and subject coordinators this book will provide the guidance they need to conduct and act upon quality reviews and evidence- based analyses of pupils' learning and the quality of teaching.

1 The Case for Evidence-based Management and Leadership

Initiatives, changes and mandates in education keep on coming. External reforms have become the norm in education. Yet, schools are also encouraged to be self-managing institutions. These two trends do not always sit easily alongside one another. Self-determining schools find the prescriptions of others difficult to accept, let alone implement. Or, expressed another way: How can we manage ourselves when others keep on setting the agenda? One resolution of this duality, and one which prevents it becoming a dilemma, is to understand that self-managing schools need to be organizations that are constantly aware of their external environments and their internal achievements and always striving to balance the two. Sometimes the external factors will weigh more heavily than internal ones; at another time the point of balance will shift towards internal conditions. However, if the point of balance is dynamic, then what will help staff understand where the fulcrum needs to be placed at any one time is a keen sense of evaluation and school review.

The case for an evidence-based approach to school management, leadership and improvement relies on school self-evaluation. For example, when the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) introduced target-setting, one of the guidance documents despatched to all schools stated that target-setting aids school review. Pupil performance targets provide firm measures against which to judge recent progress because headteachers, teachers and governing bodies can see more clearly whether they are achieving or falling short in their main goals (DfEE, 1997b, p. 8). At the same time, school reviews should help staff in schools to identify the approaches to improvement which work. From an examination of whether set targets have been met, senior staff should be able to see which strategies and tactics adopted by staff have contributed in a major way to accomplishing these goals. In other words, target-setting has to be based on self-enquiry, audit, review and evaluation, as the DfEE advisers were themselves keenly aware:

Target-setting alone will not raise standards in schools. They [targets] are the next step in improving development planning. They need to fit into a sensible cycle of school review, planning and action.

(DfEE, 1997b, p. 8)

This represents our position too. At the heart of the self-managing and self-improving school lies school self-evaluation.

A cycle of review, planning and action is something we have been committed to for many years. We have long seen school development as cyclical and revolving around ‘what are essentially evaluation processes within which a repertoire of evaluation techniques can be utilised’ (Holly and Southworth, 1989, p. 2). In turn, this outlook was based on four questions:

What do we need to look at?

Where are we now?

Where do we want to be?

How do we get there?

These questions equate with the identification of priority needs for development, stocktaking of current practice in chosen areas of focus, target-setting and strategic planning in terms of an action plan prior to implementation (p. 45).

Clearly, school self-evaluation is not a new idea. It has been around for more than 20 years. Since the original ideas were developed in the 1970s and 1980s there has been much valuable experience gained. Also, following the structural education reforms of the late 1980s we have seen the concept and the principles of procedure of school review begin to flower in newly variegated ways. The target-setting initiative is just one manifestation of this new blossoming. Another is the introduction of self-managing schools.

Schools may now be more self-managing and self-determining than formerly, and certainly schools today enjoy greater institutional autonomy than a decade ago, yet their autonomy is largely only from local government authority—the LEAs (local education authorities), but not from central government’s authority and control. Hence, although schools enjoy greater levels of freedom, they are also required to be more accountable than ever before. Autonomy in England and Wales has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the exercise of public accountability. The most tangible form of accountability is the inspection of all schools by a team of inspectors external to the school. These teams are accredited and contracted by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), a government agency. While it is right and proper that schools be held to account, the danger with the Ofsted style of inspection, where every school is now visited once every six years, is that staff become dependent upon the inspectors’ audit and wait for them to tell the school what to focus on next. In other words, while schools may have become independent of LEAs, some may become more dependent upon the Ofsted analyses of the schools’ work.

We do not approve of such a passive approach to improvement or review. Rather, in line with almost all the teachers and schools we work with, we believe in using evaluation techniques and cycles of review to better understand one’s own progress and that of the pupils’ performance. It is for these reasons that this book has been put together. We want to offer colleagues the tools of evaluation, within the principles and parameters of school self-evaluation.

Perhaps one test of whether your school is a self-evaluating and self-improving school is to play the ‘envelope game’. This ‘game’ involves staff identifying their school’s strengths and weaknesses prior to the school being inspected. A reasonably full audit should be made, drawing upon the school’s development plan, action plan, pupil targets, success in meeting the targets, pupils’ learning data and school performance information, as well as detailed reviews of the school’s organizational units (e.g. key stage units, year groups, subject areas). From an analysis of these data the specific areas of success and concern could be noted, recorded and put into an envelope. When the inspectors visit, observe the learning and teaching in the school and produce their inspection report, the contents of the envelope might then be compared with the inspectors’ main findings and key issues. Ideally, any comparison between the two should develop a dialogue not only about the validity of each group’s perception, but also the veracity of their judgments. Some interesting discussion could develop which might enhance both the quality of school self-review and the detail and scope of the inspectors’ insights.

If the Ofsted programme of school inspections is one reason why school self-evaluation has today changed from how it was conceptualized a decade or more ago, another significant development has been the introduction of benchmarking. Today, truly evaluatory schools do not only examine their own levels of performance; they also contrast these with the success of other schools in their LEA and with schools in similar circumstances. This is consistent with the idea that evaluation is a ‘spanning activity’ (Holly and Southworth, 1989, p. 2), although today it is a far more comparative form of review than anything envisaged 10 to 15 years ago. Consequently, the four questions of school self-evaluation which were originally advocated have now been extended by a fifth:

How do we compare with similar schools?

This question looks not only at how well a school is doing, but how well it should be doing by comparing current and previous results with those of similar schools. (DfEE, 1997, p. 7)

Such a question clearly extends the scope of awareness staff in any school will have of their individual and school performance. It moves them from a narrow relativism, when staff might have seen their work only in reference to previous years’ efforts, to a wider appreciation of the school’s achievements. It also enables staff to look more deeply. For example, from our work with schools we know that by using comparative data staff have been aware that although their schools have been making progress, relative to some other schools, these rates of progress have looked modest and this has stimulated senior staff to set more challenging targets within shorter timescales and to accelerate the pace of improvement.

Wider awareness and deeper analysis provide the foundations of an evidence-based approach to school management, leadership and improvement. This approach marks a significant forward movement in school self-evaluation because it encompasses both the analyses of process issues and outcome indicators. It looks at the school’s internal performance levels and at how these compare with other schools. It draws upon inspection information, LEA data and teachers’ professional judgments. Moreover, the data collection and analysis is undertaken with a commitment to improve the school’s performance over time and to enhance pupils’ learning and development.

There are numerous signs of this evidence-based approach being applied systematically in schools today. Recent visits we have made to research schools’ approaches to value-added analyses of the pupils’ learning show how some heads and deputies or assistant heads are using data sets to develop understandings and diagnose issues and priorities. Several heads we know are now using staff development days to review these data and to develop interpretations of them and to understand their implications for the school and its improvement priorities.

It should not be presumed from the foregoing that all of this means becoming obsessed with pupil test scores. One school we know has looked at the quality of school outcomes in the broadest sense and ranges across curriculum, pastoral and management areas. The headteacher is aware there is much scope ‘for in-house value added investigations’ and that schools should be encouraged to ‘get to grips with other evidence—often internal and sometimes informal—to cast light on a range of outcomes that extend well beyond SATs (Pfister, 1997, p. 22).

The questions staff often ask themselves and the data they use to address them include the following:

Communication How effectively have we created two way channels to foster shared understandings with pupils and parents?

Data could be derived from: the nature of parents’ letters to schools; parent attendance at (and response to) curriculum and consultation meetings; yearly questionnaires; homework record book comments; pupil attendance and late records; response to standard letters; feedback forms in the home/school information pack; parent response slips from reports; teachers’ marking comments; pupil comments as drafting and writing partners. Lack of data is also data! No complaints about bullying or no holiday absence may indicate that communication at both child and adult level is ineffective. No response slips returned may mean something else.

Engagement Are things being accomplished at home and at school in practice as well as in policy?

Data could be derived from any sampling undertaken by the head and subject managers as part of the school’s monitoring timetable (regular) or in response to School Development Planning success criteria (ad hoc). Three children across the range of ability in every class, in person or through their work, can give an instant picture of the progress of referencing skills, the acquisition of [number] tables, the nature of individual targets or how often they are being heard to read at home.

Achievement and attainment Are we seeing the progress and standards that evidence improvement?

Data could be derived from spelling or reading ages plotted twice yearly for each year group and analysed both for longitudinal attainment (percentages of children at or near their chronological reading age, six months to a year above or below) and progress (percentages of children making less or more than six months, or one year’s progress within the year). This information can then be analysed to address the quality of provision for children of different abilities (boys, girls, bilingual learners etc.) through the school; it casts light on peaks and troughs of learning at different times and in different classes.

(Pfister, 1997, pp. 24–25)

What this headteacher describes here is an evidence-based approach to school management and leadership. It is clear she is able to raise these questions with her colleagues and later return to these concerns with data and indicators that show whether there is something which needs to be further examined, applauded or improved. In short: ‘Monitoring widely and making use of the information is central to school improvement’ (p. 22). Evidence illuminates the focus for a school’s improvement efforts and the analysis leads to new actions. This latter point is very important. Monitoring and evaluation are key processes. This book will make this point many times over. However, evaluation is but the prelude to action.

While this point is obviously important, our experience tells us that it needs to be emphasized because one of the pitfalls of evaluation is that analysis of data does not lead to action. Rather, what sometimes happens is that analysis leads to paralysis. Some staff groups drown in all the data they collect. They keep on collecting data but never believe they have enough to answer conclusively the questions they generate. Others enjoy creating graphs and charts and see the collation of data as an end in itself. Neither of these two approaches is satisfactory. For sure, teachers need some data, but not so much that it becomes unwieldy or so time-consuming that other activities are sidelined.

The other point to highlight from Pfister’s work is her idea that using evidence is central to school improvement. Such an outlook is vital to the case for an evidence-based approach to management and leadership. The whole point of conducting school reviews is to strengthen the school’s work and better serve the pupils, while, at the same time, identifying effective teaching and learning and celebrating them. When this occurs then the developing or moving school becomes the improving school: that is, a school which is not just changing and keeping up to date with the latest mandate, but one which can articulate where it wants to be and can describe the journey that has been embarked on. Staff, and not just senior staff, will be able to explain the targets and objectives they have set for the pupils and themselves and will be able to describe their starting points, the pathways followed and outline the progress made. In time, the staff will also be able to call up data that shows how well they are working towards their goals and suggest what else needs to be explored and charted. These are plainly not ‘strolling’ schools, nor ones which simply travel hopefully. They are schools which are mapping their processes of change. They have planned and set out their journeys of improvement and are recording what they have experienced, discovered and learned as they have progressed towards their destinations.

Improving Schools

The case for an evidence-based approach to management and leadership has now been presented in outline. At the same time, some key ideas have been briefly touched on. These include:

• monitoring

• analysis

• an orientation to action

• looking closely at performance inside the school

• comparing your progress with similar schools

• target-setting

• improving the school.

While all of these ideas are closely related to each other, the idea of improving the school is the one which underpins all of them and gives both point and purpose to them.

However, one of the things we have learned over the last decade is that in order for schools to develop, each has to create and sustain the conditions for school improvement.

Research into effective school improvement (e.g. Ainscow et...