Evidencing ProgressDani Sive

Judith Evans

Frank Barnes School

Sign Bilingual Consortium 17th June 2013

When we started work on our data we had vast stores. We had :

Whole school grids for English and Maths (all ATs)

Class grids for English Maths Science Individual pupil trackers for everything BSL assessments Records in Annual Reviews

Data, data everywhere (nor any drop to drink)

Our data was subdivided into mainstream deaf and SEN deaf, it was then broken down by cohorts.

We ended up with lots of detail about the twigs on the branches on the trees but no clear picture about what the wood looked like.

...a bit like this

Analysis of need across the whole school 2013 updated June 2013Number of pupils on roll: 31 Girls: 20 (66%) Boys: 11 (33%)

Eligible for Free School Meals: 11 ( 37 %) 8 FSM pupils with additional needs: (73%)

Time on roll: Total number of pupils currently in KS1 and 2: 2214 pupils ( 45 % total roll) (64% of KS1 and KS2 pupils) joined

since the end of the Foundation Stage

Of the new joiners: 15 (64%) have additional needs 10 (73%) have a language other than English at home 9 (64%) have no access to BSL at home

We went through a systematic process of asking

•What did we want our data to do?

•What about our existing systems did this?

•What could we do differently?

Then we designed a solution.

Step 1 What did we need? We needed data to tell

a story so that we could identify what was working and what needed to improve

We needed data that governors, visitors, Ofsted could understand and evaluate

We needed data to be a driver for school improvement

We needed data that told the story of our pupils as a group

We needed to benchmark our pupils against similar pupils

Step 2 What did need to keep?

It was essential to have the full amount of pupil level data. It enabled us to provide detailed reports on individual pupils whenever we needed to.

Dani, Karen and Sandra needed to be able to look at a class and see what was going on.

Teachers needed to keep track of their classes.

Step 3 What could we add or change?

It became clear that what we needed was a change in how our data was presented for evaluation

We needed the whole school on 1 or 2 sheets

We needed to refer to expected progress

We needed P levels and NC level integrated

Summer 2011

NC4

HSL

NC3

H

S

L

NC2

H

S

L

NC1

H

S

L

P8

H

S

L

P7

H

S

L

P6

HSL

P5

HSL

P4

HSL

L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H L S HP4 P5 P6 P7 P8 NC1 NC2 NC3 NC4

Summer 2010 Reading

This is what we made.

This table enabled us to put all children onto one overview sheet.

The bottom of the chart is the level achieved at the end of the previous year

Points within P levels were grouped using H S L

P5

HSL

P4

HSL

L S HP4

The children’s names go into the boxes

The side of the chart is the level achieved this year

We already worked to a challenging expected progress formula in school so that was added.

1 year’s progress 1 P level or 2/3 NC level

We wanted to measure in year data as well which the green boxes support

2/3 P level or 1/3 NC level

We also added in a lower level of progress which does tally with overall expectations

(I NC level or 2 P levels in 2 years)

We added a key to enable group analysis Girl

FSM

White British

White Other

Turkish

Black African

Black Caribbean and Mixed

Bangladeshi

Pakistani

When we write a name in red italics underlined it means a Black African girl entitled to FSM

For governors we do it with initials

For you we have done it with g and b (which negates the italics)

Summer 2011

NC4

H

S

L

NC3

H G

S

L G

NC2

H B

S B

L

NC1

H g

S G g

L G

P8

H G

S

L G

P7

H B B B

S

L B B

P6

H

S G B G

L

P5

H

S

L

P4

H B

S

L

L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H

P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 NC1 NC2 NC3 NC4

Summer 2010 Reading

Summer

2012

NC4

H

S LH

L

NC3

H LM

S

L

NC2

H EM

S SS AS

L AM SA MG SK

NC1

H AS CO JT

S JH MF AK PFIS

L SD CBHS

CA LSW

P8 H MK

S

L

P7 H

S

L

P6 H

S

L

P5 H

S

L

P4 H

S

L

L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H L S H

P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 NC1 NC2 NC3 NC4

Summer 2011 Numeracy

Our maths data for last year told us we needed a maths focus.

This is where other data is valuable.

CRIDE shows us that maths is an area where deaf children nationally make less progress, so although we know that we need to improve maths, we also know that there are some specific issues which mean that our data is not as bad as it looks.

Using the data to identify issues We know that White British pupils make good progress and

are more likely than other pupils to reach or exceed age expectations.

“The trend for higher attainment amongst White British children who have access to signing before starting school continues, and is evident at both Key stage 1 and Key stage 2. The work of the school to build partnerships with local Early Years centres continues, and we hope that the benefits of this will begin to be evident in earlier admission of Deaf children from ethnic minority groups. As we admit from many boroughs, we are dependent on the supportive infra-structure that exists within the pupils’ home boroughs. Many children from minority ethnic backgrounds are also entitled to FSM. Pupil Premium funding has been spent on enhancing communication work with parents to improve language access at home.

There is, at present, no comparative data for Deaf children from different ethnic minority groups.”

SO WHAT?