How to unlock the power of school improvement planning

CPD, performance management and development planning may be ‘backroom’ processes but they are crucial to student achievement.

It’s a big concern, then, that many schools still lack the means to intelligently track and manage these crucial processes.

Very little of what a student does nowadays in school is left untracked and unanalysed. Accountability has been one factor behind this assessment revolution. Ofsted demands an increasingly sophisticated picture of student progress so that any gap in pupil attainment can be pinpointed and addressed quickly. The collective will of teaching staff and school leaders to do the best they can do for their pupils is another.

But the processes that support staff performance, such as performance management, school development planning, self evaluation and CPD, aren’t given the same level of scrutiny in many schools.

This is surprising given what we already know about the impact these processes have on pupil performance. TheTeacher Development Trust for example points to a New Zealand study showing that classes whose teachers had taken part in high-quality professional development improved twice as fast as those in other classes. It also showed that the 20 per cent of pupils deemed ‘least able’ made improvements up to six times faster than their peers in other classes.

The chief reason these processes aren’t given the level of attention that, say, pupil attainment receives is that it is difficult and time consuming to track and manage them in a meaningful way on a lever arch file of paper or in an Excel spreadsheet. Another is that there are no significant repercussions for not ‘working the plan’ or producing real evidence of connectivity between these processes.

This needs to change. Ofsted today wants schools to give full account of the improvement processes that ultimately have a huge impact upon pupil attainment. It wants evidence that the SLT knows the school’s strengths and weaknesses, that leaders are fully involved in self-evaluation and that development plans are focused on improving teaching and raising achievement.

If lever arch files and spreadsheets sounds like your school’s approach then your admin will need to be at its best to produce the joined up, rich information that you will need to meet the demands of Ofsted and, as importantly, help staff make the biggest impact they can on pupil achievement . But this approach is just not sustainable for most schools.

In order to generate worthwhile information, the systems you use must be intelligent. They must do as much automatic administration as possible and produce the information you need.

Your system should be responsive to the information that is fed into it. Remember that your colleagues are much more likely to engage when they know that the information they put in actually leads to changes in the way things are done in your school. Also, everyone should see the value of the time they put in not only in the school context but also in terms of their own career development.

It is also a good idea to think about the actual school improvement ‘jigsaw’ and what you need to do to make the pieces work together.

Any school improvement process will include priority planning which in turn should lead to action plans which are owned by individual staff members. Their progress and activity should be tracked and evaluated for effectiveness. Any areas of improvement that are identified from this evaluation should in turn inform staff professional development.

Once you are clear about the process, consider exactly how and where you will record it and manage it in a way that is retrievable and meaningful?

Ideally, you should record this information in a way which works for you and this often means using a purpose built ICT system. This will cost you in the short term but over time you will justify the investment by producing information of a far higher quality.

Making information work for a range of contexts is also an important consideration. Imagine a colleague working on aspects of leadership within a team project, perhaps aimed at improving boys’ behaviour. So many elements of this work will contribute directly to this person’s career development as well as meeting a development need for the school. It makes sense that these contributions should feed more than one area of accountability without the need for hours of work duplicating information for different reports - and the risk of lost evidence.

With increasing school collaboration, for example in federations, academy chains, trusts and teaching school alliances, the issue of performance evaluation becomes even more complicated. In these situations a school will have responsibility for driving improvement in other schools. If these schools fail to get a proper hold on the management of school improvement processes this could compromise the ability of several schools to continue improving.

As the UK education system fragments there is now an even greater need for schools to manage themselves as effectively as possible. Paper and spreadsheets might produce data about their school improvement processes, but this won’t be intelligent because it will be so difficult to manipulate.

It really is time for schools to get a clear, intelligent view of school improvement processes so that they can meet the demands of accountability – and help staff help pupils achieve.

Outstanding Testimony - Seend Primary School

"...it is perfectly in line with Ofsted’s requirements and ensures that all I have to focus on is the school improvement work needed to raise standards..."

"I am in the first year of using Bluewave.SWIFT so I am still not fully aware of its ultimate potential. However it has already had a profound affect on certain aspects of my work. I was initially looking for a system that would help me to present a more structured School Development Plan and that is exactly what I got. The governing body were very impressed with what I was able to present to them this year, as it clearly links in with the Ofsted Categories. However, the system has given me much, much more. It has allowed me to input the Teacher Appraisal targets onto the system – linked to the projects within the School Development Plan and to Professional Standards. The system encourages the staff to then take ownership of recording their progress against their targets by logging on and recording their evidence.

The Self-Evaluation section provides an extremely comprehensive set of prompts to encourage you to assess yourself and identify where you need to improve – thus linking into the School Development Plan. With the facility to tie in CPD as well, as far as I am concerned, it is perfectly in line with Ofsted’s requirements and ensures that all I have to focus on is the school improvement work needed to raise standards and not worry about whether I have missed something or that it is not all joined up thinking – the hard work has been done for me.

One other thing to add is the ongoing support that I have received in building up the skills base to operate the system has been second to none. I am happy to recommend this as a complete system in managing school improvement."

Jackie Chalk, Headteacher, Seend CofE VA Primary School

Does your CPD have a direct impact on school improvement?

School CPD - Everybody discusses it and nobody argues that it shouldn't happen. After all, if there was no professional development how would we progress?

But there’s plenty of professional development going on in school which just ticks boxes or satisfies a requirement for ‘something to be done.’

It certainly doesn’t always help a school improve.

For evidence of this you just have to look for the stifled yawns, eye rolling and blank stares at your next school inset day.

If there is any paperwork evaluating the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the training then it might just be a few ticks on an evaluation sheet which are then filed away in a lever arch folder and never seen again.

I think this happens because there is still a lack of understanding from leaders of what truly effective CPD is and whether it moves a school forward, as well as uncertainty around how to track the impact ofteacher CPD.

In tough financial times like today it has never been more important for CPD coordinators to know which professional development delivers the very best value for money.

I’d characterise school CPD as a bit like a huge set menu meal for thousands of people. This approach is, on the face of it, effective – many people engaging in many things. You’re bound to satisfy a few appetites and some people will even enjoy it. But there will be many people who don’t get what they want or more importantly, what they need. These people might well go hungry and be turned off the experience for the rest of their life.

There might be a multitude of reasons why not enough priority is being given to identifying the most appropriate CPD at the moment. This might be down to a lack of meaningful articulation of needs, a lack of context for evaluation and impact, unrealistic expectations associated with impact of CPD, or a lack of consistency around the value and nature of CPD.

How can you ensure CPD leads to school improvement?

So how can you and your leadership team colleagues overcome these barriers and ensure that teacher CPD returns on the investment and leads directly to individual progress and whole school improvement?

An excellent starting point can be a couple of well chosen questions. Ask your colleagues if they know how their CPD directly relates to school improvement. I doubt that they all do and the further you are from the headteacher’s ‘vision’ for the school the less connection or relevance you will see.

The next question to ask is, if an individual can’t convey or demonstrate how their own CPD relates to not only school development planning but their own wider development, why are they doing it?

While the pinnacle of successful CPD is an evidence base of positive impact, the foundation stone is the identification and understanding of what we need to do and what success or impact will look like.

I would suggest that the identification and analysis of individual professional development should be given a much greater importance. Quite simply this means asking more questions of ourselves and our colleagues about what we need to do to in order to move forward.

Supplying the evidence of CPD impact

Perhaps more problematic is how to supply the evidence of impact. My advice would be to look first at the actual impact itself and then link that back to the most relevant CPD event. In this way you can build up a rich picture of the effectiveness of each CPD activity. This helps you track which CPD activities result in tangible changes in the practice of the colleagues and therefore contributes to schoolimprovement – and which don’t.

This can then be influential in terms of future CPD planning decisions and help the school arrive at a point where all its CPD has an integral part in school improvement.

Interestingly we are always looking at the performance of pupils and assessing the quality of learning but there is still not enough good practice around that measures the productiveness of CPD and what that means in terms of quality of teaching.

Take an example, where a decision might be made to send a senior colleague on some leadership training about how to manage teams.

They will attend the training and then evaluate it. They will say how good it was, how effective they think it will be and what they will do differently as a result of receiving the training, and from where they expect to draw evidence of this.

At a later point that individual might be working on the school improvement plan. One priority area of the plan might be to improve leadership and management. They might write in the plan that they have recently introduced a series of peer led management meetings across the school and that this has enabled a much greater shared responsibility of leadership of the school. In other words they are describing impact or changes.

Once they have written that they should ask whether any of the CPD that has been delivered previously has been relevant to these changes. By ticking against a piece of CPD you establish a clear link between the CPD delivered and a tangible piece of school improvement. A clear, evidence based picture is built up of the great value and impact of that particular piece of CPD. This gives you and your colleagues a strong guide as to what CPD works in your school context.

Empowering teachers

For teachers this approach to evaluation gives them a real stake in the process. It makes it easier for them to provide evidence of the impact of their CPD and also means that future CPD will be informed by them because an explicit path is made between CPD and the impact it has had on school improvement.

This approach has a powerful effect on the bottom line as well because all of the money invested in CPD will deliver tangible, measurable school improvement and this will make future spending decisions that much easier.

With budgets decreasing schools have to be absolutely sure that the money they have to spend on CPD works. It’s now time to make CPD really count.

Keith Wright is MANAGING DIRECTOR of school information management specialist Bluewave.SWIFT.  He has worked with hundreds of schools during in the past decade supporting institutional leadership and management. For the past six years Keith has worked with Leeds City Council to develop their quality standards framework for adoption by schools in the UK and overseas. He has also advised overseas education ministries on raising school standards through the effective use of school improvement support systems. For further information go to www.bluewaveswift.co.uk

Is a 'two page SEF' an oxymoron?

3 SEF's in five years, 

then no SEF, then 3 SEF's in a year! 

No wonder Headteachers are frustrated.

So, the challenge is how to produce the necessary 'two page SEF', deemed most desirable by some Ofsted inspectors, that contains everything you want (or need) to say about your school. It is highly appropriate that inspections should focus on the educational capability of the school rather than a documentary synopsis, but Headteachers can be forgiven for thinking that a two page SEF might leave them short changed.

Of course, not all Headteachers are pressurised into producing this rather brief overview of such a complex, dynamic and unique establishment; but some are and many are rightly concerned about how they can be expected to dance to several tunes at any one time.

Our approach to supporting schools therefore attempts to meet the challenge head-on.

If the first stage of engagement is to present a two page synopsis then so be it; but that same synopsis must be 'expandable' in order that when questioned, the Headteacher can drill down into the detail and provide as much evidence-driven evaluation as may be necessary. Essentially, we enable schools (and that means everyone within a school community) to record all of their contributions to school improvement in such a way that the detail builds the bigger picture. Once a school achieves this, the bigger (two page) picture can be produced, secure in the knowledge that it is built upon solid foundations - foundations which are accessible at the click of a button and which demonstrate whole school contribution and robust, evidence-based evaluation at all levels.

Of course, this can all be done on paper; but paper based systems aren't sustainable, they don't support sound succession planning and ultimately they cost a lot more in terms of finance and stress.

In these times of knee-jerk changes in regulation, doesn't it make sense to have one, all-encompassing system that is driven by the need to lessen the impact of those changes?

85% of schools maintain or improve their Ofsted Grade!

85% of schools maintain or improve their Ofsted Grade!

We (Bluewave) have gathered data regarding eighty schools that have been using Bluewave.SWIFT for a number of years. The only criteria are that these eighty schools have experienced at least two inspections within the study period. We have focussed only on ‘overall effectiveness’ for the purpose of this study and the figures relate to judgements made following the school’s second inspection unless otherwise stated.

We don’t assume these schools improve solely as a result of using Bluewave.SWIFT. Our preferred view is that these schools would have improved anyway and as part of their leadership and management approach, they choose the very best tools to help them get there.

Our summary conclusion therefore, based on the evidence gathered, is that schools with the capability and capacity to improve are more likely to do so using Bluewave.SWIFT.

Read the excerpt from Ofsted statistics and the comparison figures below:

Management Information: new schools inspection framework

This management information provides an overview of the outcomes of the inspections which took place under section 5 of the Education Act 2011 in the first three weeks of the new school inspection framework which began 1 January 2012. 

Table 1: The inspection judgements of schools inspected between 6 January and 20 January 2012 (percentage of schools)[1]

Click image to enlarge.

Percentages are rounded and do not always add exactly to 100.

Summary of Ofsted findings with Bluewave.SWIFT user comparisons.

·         Out of 348 schools inspected in the first 3 weeks of the new arrangements, 57% were judged good or outstanding in their overall effectiveness. (Ofsted)

·         64% of schools were judged good or outstanding. (Bluewave.SWIFT)

·         Eight per cent of schools were judged outstanding in their overall effectiveness, achievement of pupils and quality of teaching judgements.

·         24% of schools were judged outstanding compared with 8% after their first inspection – an improvement of 16%.

·         Thirteen per cent of schools were judged inadequate in their overall effectiveness and of these seven per cent were given a notice to improve whilst the remaining schools were placed into special measures.

·         3% of schools were judged inadequate – no change compared with the first inspection but the schools were different.

·         All but seven schools had a previous section 5 inspection. Only 19% of schools improved, 50% stayed the same and over a quarter (28%) declined on their previous inspection. This compares with 34% improving, 47% staying the same and 19% declining at inspection during 2010/11.

·         36% of schools improved their grading

·         49% of schools maintained their grading

·         15% of schools experienced a lower grading

Additional Information (compiled by Bluewave)

The following is a summary of Ofsted judgements achieved by the eighty schools using Bluewave.SWIFT and includes comparisons with Ofsted inspection data from the period September 2005 to August 2011

Summary  of data relating to the eighty schools across two consecutive inspections and comparisons with Ofsted data (Overall Effectiveness)
1	Percentage of schools that maintained or improved their Ofsted Grade	85%
2	Percentage of schools that improved their Ofsted Grade	36%
3	Percentage of schools that improved to achieve 'Outstanding'	18%
4	Percentage of schools judged to be 'Good' or 'Outstanding' in their second inspection	64%
5	Percentage of schools graded Outstanding in first inspection	8%
	Percentage of schools graded Outstanding in second inspection	24%
	Average percentage of inspections graded 'Outstanding' - Ofsted Data (Sept 2005 - Aug 2011)	14%
	Lowest percentage of inspections graded 'Outstanding' - Ofsted Data (Sept 2005 - Aug 2011) - '05-'06 & '10-'11	11%
	Highest percentage of inspections graded 'Outstanding' - Ofsted Data (Sept 2005 - Aug 2011) - '08-'09	19%
6	Percentage of schools graded 'Inadequate' in second inspection	3%
	Average percentage of inspections graded 'Inadequate' - Ofsted Data (Sept 2005 - Aug 2011)	6%
	Lowest percentage of inspections graded 'Inadequate' - Ofsted Data (Sept 2005 - Aug 2011) - '08-'09	4%
	Highest percentage of inspections graded 'Inadequate' - Ofsted Data (Sept 2005 - Aug 2011) - '05-'06 & '09-'10	8%

The full Ofsted report can be found here: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/official-statistics-maintained-school-inspections-and-outcomes

---

Continuity in the new Professional Teacher Standards - Bluewave.SWIFT

Continuity in the new Professional Teacher Standards

One of the challenges faced by people when they encounter change is having to ‘start things from scratch’. Understandably, people may be forgiven for asking ‘why change?’ and ‘why so often?’ A good example of this is the Ofsted SEF which changed fairly regularly and was then apparently abandoned in July 2011 only for a new framework to be devised and advised in January 2012. A more recent example is the new Professional Standards for teachers.

The new Teacher Standards come into force in September 2012 but is it really the case that teachers must wait until then before using them? A more relevant question perhaps is ‘what happens to all my evidence from the past?’ Having invested so much of their time in generating an evidence base for one format, is it really fair to ask teachers to do it all again?

Answers to these questions are the reason why Bluewave.SWIFT exists; leaders in education will recognise there must be continuity and succession planning if we are to ensure the burden of bureaucracy does not impinge on the core business of a school. In other words, administration must be made easier.

Teachers using Bluewave.SWIFT have ‘future-proofed’ their evidence. Simply storing their evidence and documents in a unique way ensures that it all comes to the surface in the right place in the future, regardless of what the next version of teaching standards looks like. This method works for all staff and indeed for the whole school meaning that everyone can have a truly lifelong record of progress all in one place, all interconnected to Performance Management and to Continuing Professionaldevelopment (CPD)

The Teacher Standards 2012 are built into in Bluewave.SWIFT alongside the current teaching standards. Headteacher standards are also included as well as Teaching Assistant standards and the National Occupational Standards for support staff.

Click here to see a video of how you can evaluate against the new Teacher Standards 

First the SEF now SFVS… how many more plates to spin?

First the SEF now SFVS…

…how many more plates to spin?

Schools face many challenges today not least how to cope with the fallout of recent changes and cuts to budgets; there are clearly many decisions to be made which may significantly impact the school, its staff and students. Potentially all decisions will involve the governing body and it has never been more important that the decisions made must be well informed decisions.

Question: ‘How can we be assured we are well informed?’

Consider the revised SFVS framework which many schools must complete by the end of March 2012. This revision is intended to reduce the level of complexity associated with its predecessor FMSiS. We might look back and ask ‘what of all our past efforts in FMSiS?’ and look forward and ask ‘what if SFVS changes into something else, perhaps something even bigger and more complex than FMSiS?’

The challenge of catering for the future with regard to SFVS might not in itself be that big an issue. However, if we consider the bigger challenge of how to produce many self-evaluation reports, including whole-school inspections focussing on performance and improvement, then we begin to see how this aspect of school monitoring is akin to [pardon the pun] death by a thousand cuts.

In the past, the public sector, with a more centralised ‘control and management’ resource (now rapidly diminishing) didn’t always call for schools to adopt new ideas and mechanisms that would sustainably support their own operational efficiencies; the net result is that as schools become more independent and self-reliant, they may often lack the necessary ‘tools’ to survive in a challenging environment with regard to provision of coherent management information.

Microsoft Word or Excel (or similar products) will not, without high maintenance, connect your Strategic Development Plan to Performance Management dynamically and will not facilitate an automatic flow of information from your Development Plan to your Self-evaluation Report.

“… This is one of those products that really does deliver what it says on the can and is the first programme I have ever bought that really does significantly reduce my workload.”

Mark Edwards, Headteacher
Shire Oak CE Primary School

We genuinely believe there is a better way for people on the front line of accountability in schools to manage and reduce this workload:

“Our ability to secure accountability is significantly improved with Bluewave.SWIFT. Previously everything was coming into the Head teacher’s office and never going out.”

 

John Drake, Headteacher

Coppice Valley Junior School

We also believe there is a consensus developing that any school facing this myriad of challenges over the next few years will only succeed, in relative terms, if they adopt a modern, purpose-built, coherent and future proof approach.

Keith Wright has worked with schools for the past seven years offering front line support and strategic direction.

He is the Managing Director of Bluewave.SWIFT a company specialising in the field of school improvement management

www.bluewaveswift.co.uk