29 April 2008Edgbaston Cricket Ground

Using Action Research to Identify and Address

Underachievement 2008-2009

 

What will my school be expected to do?

Undertake an action research project to identify how the attainment of identified underachieving pupils might be improved.This will involve:• Identification of the research question/hypothesis• Identification of focus pupils, completing diagnostic analysis to ascertain learning needs• Identification of research approach and actions to be undertaken• Completion and submission of bid through production of an action plan• Conduct action research project• Interim evaluation and production of brief (written) report• Collection of evidence of impact• Evaluation of impact and production of brief (written) summary report

Centre-based workshops (including the action research process); in-school consultancy; networking with schools researching similar issues.

Timescale: * Bids submitted by 16th May 2008* Results of bid and allocation of £4,000 funding by the end of June

2008* Action Research Project conducted

between September 2008 and June 2009.

* Interim report submitted by 1st December 2008 and second allocation of £4000 in January 2009

* Final report submitted mid July 2009.

What support could be available?

 

Actual and projected results for KS4 5+ A*-C including English and Maths by gender based on average improvement rate 2005 to 2007

42.6

44.1

45.9

47.6

49.2

50.9

52.5 53

46.7

48.3

50.1

51.8

53.5

55.2

56.9

38.5

40.0

41.8

43.5

45.1

46.8

48.4

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target 2011

perc

en

tag

e o

f p

up

ils a

ch

ievin

g 5

+A

*-C

in

c E

ng

/Math

AllGirlsBoys

target for 2011

2005 to 2007 actual results 2008 to 2011 projected results

 

 

Progress in English from KS3 to Key Stage 4 English GCSE by individual levels/grades, gender and free school meals

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

KS3 Lev 3FSM to KS4

A*-E

KS3 Lev 3non-FSM toKS4 A*-E

KS3 Lev 4FSM to KS4

A*-D

KS3 Lev 4non- FSM to

KS4 A*-D

KS3 Lev 5FSM to KS4

A*-C

KS3 Lev 5non-FSM toKS4 A*-C

KS3 Lev 6FSM to KS4

A*-B

KS3 Lev 6non-FSM toKS4 A*-B

KS3 Lev 7FSM to KS4

A*-A

KS3 Lev 7non-FSM toKS4 A*-A

pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pu

pil

s

Girls Boys All

 

Progress in Maths from KS3 to Key Stage 4 Maths GCSE by individual levels/grades, gender and free school meals

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

KS3 Lev 3FSM to KS4

A*-E

KS3 Lev 3non-FSM toKS4 A*-E

KS3 Lev 4FSM to KS4

A*-D

KS3 Lev 4non- FSM to

KS4 A*-D

KS3 Lev 5FSM to KS4

A*-C

KS3 Lev 5non-FSM toKS4 A*-C

KS3 Lev 6FSM to KS4

A*-B

KS3 Lev 6non-FSM toKS4 A*-B

KS3 Lev 7FSM to KS4

A*-A

KS3 Lev 7non-FSM toKS4 A*-A

per

cen

tag

e o

f p

up

ils

Girls Boys All

 

Actual and projected two overall two level progress from KS3 to KS4 in English 2005 to 2011 based on increased improvement in specific progression groups 2008 to 2011

58.6

71

54.056.2 55.5

59.4

63.2

67.0

70.9 71

54.056.2 55.5

56.3 57.1 57.8

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target 2011

perc

en

tag

e o

f p

up

ils

current projectednew projection

2005 to 2007 actual point difference 2008 to 2011 projected point difference

target for 2011

target for 2011

 

Actual and projected two overall two level progress from KS3 to KS4 in Maths 2005 to 2011 based on increased improvement in specific progression groups 2008 to 2011

32.3

40

25.6

27.127.8

31.1

34.4

37.7

40.940

25.6

27.127.8

28.930.0

31.1

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target 2011

pe

rcen

tag

e o

f p

up

ils

current projectednew projection

2005 to 2007 actual point difference 2008 to 2011 projected point difference

target for 2011

 

Actual and projected results for KS4 5+ A*-C including English and Maths by free school meal entitlement (FSM) based on average improvement rate 2005 to 2007

42.644.1

45.947.6

49.250.9

52.5

46.547.8

49.551.0

52.554.0

55.5

18.119.7

21.523.2

24.926.6

28.3

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

per

cen

tag

e o

f p

up

ils a

chie

vin

g 5

+A

*-C

inc

En

g/M

ath

Allnon FSMFSM

2005 to 2007 actual results 2008 to 2011 projected results

 

Actual and projected results for KS4 5+ A*-C including English and Maths by free school meal entitlement (FSM) based on current improvement rate and new rate if

progress in Maths to Grades C and B is increased

18.119.7

21.523.2

24.926.6

28.3

25.9

30.3

34.6

39.0

46.547.8

49.551.0

52.554.0

55.555.5

54.052.5

51.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pu

pil

s a

ch

iev

ing

5+

A*-

C i

nc

En

g/M

ath

Current projection FSMNew projection FSMCurrent projection non-FSMNew projection non-FSM

2005 to 2007 actual results 2008 to 2011 projected results

BLACK PUPILS ACHIEVEMENT

PROGRAMME

Dr Lorna Cork

ACTION

RESEARCH

RAISING ACHIEVEMENT

Black Caribbean Pupil Density Map    

IMPACTED ON:

• Enjoying and Achieving

• Parent and community partnership

• Mentoring for Learning

ACTIVE LEARNING THROUGH:

• Network meetings

• Engaging speakers/community groups

• Professional and peer support

• Practical guidance material

Pupil Voice:

‘Read more books’

‘Learnt about Black culture and the things I can do to become successful’

Professional Voice

‘There is a raised awareness of ethnicity data which has challenged teacher expectations’

‘Programmes like this are essential’

I

 

Key Stage Three   2006     2007  

    LAC LA NAT   LAC LA NAT

No in cohort   136       123    

No who sat all   82       61    

% Entered   60       50    

% achieving Level 5 +                

English Tests   34 66 72   29 69 74

Mathematics Tests   30 70 77   25 70 76

Science Tests   29 63 72   26 65 73

 

For Key Stage 3 we need to be asking:

• Why is it that such a low percentage of the cohort actually entered all their SATs?

• What caused the 10% lower entry in 2007 as compared with 2006• What steps do we need to take to make sure that LAC attend school

and sit the test?• Why is the performance so much lower than their peer group?• Are we using LACES staff and all other resources available to us to

boost these young people’s scores?

Gifted and Talented

Paul Wolstenholme

Gifted and Talented

1. Underachievement = the failure to fulfil potential

2. How would you know if your Gifted and Talented pupils were underachieving?

The process for raising the achievement of G&T pupils is the same process as raising achievement for other pupils.

1. Identify underachievement

4. Monitor progress and evaluate impact

3. Put an intervention plan into place

2. Explore Reasons for underachievement

Intervention strategies that work

1. Assessment for Learning

• The 24 KMOFAP teachers showed an average effect size of 0.35

• That is they boosted their classes GCSE grades by about a half grade.

• This would raise a school’s performance from the bottom quarter of the league tables to the top third.

Intervention strategies that work

2. Assertive Mentoring In 1998 the GCSE A*-C results for Hurworth School were 38%. They considered their biggest problem to be ‘laddishness’. In 2007 it was 91% (81%) including English and maths. They believe that the gradual and sustained improvement was due to the implementation od assertive Mentoring firstly with their Year11 and subsequently also with their Year 9.

 

Frank Orboski

Looked After Children

I

 

GCSE   2006     2007

    LAC LA NAT   LAC LA

No in cohort   127       161  

No who sat 1+   84       99  

% Entered   66 99     61  

% achieving            

1 A*-G   55 98 98   60 98

5 A*-G   37 90 90   39 92

5 A*-C   13 59 59   13 62

For GCSE we need to be asking:

• On the 2006 entry 99% of the LA Cohort were entered for at least 1 GCSE. Why were only 66% of the LAC cohort entered?

• Why did this drop to 61% in 2007

• Do we make sure that LAC educated “off site” follow courses that at least lead to some accreditation?

• How do we explain the gap between LAC and their peer group?

• What can we do to address this gap?

I

 

We are ALL the Corporate Parents for LAC:

• Would we be satisfied with these results for our own children?

• Why should we be satisfied with them for children for whom we are “Corporate Parents”?

• What are we doing about it?

Minority Ethnic Achievement Programme

and

EAL

Marion Sharieff and Paddy Walsh

 

• Leadership & inclusion• Effective use of data• Learning and teaching• Literacy and learning across the curriculum• Parents & the community

Minority Ethnic Achievement Project (MEAP)

 

Objectives of the Project

To ensure that the attainment of the focus groups is raised by:

• improved teaching and learning within the core subjects in KS3

• Appropriate targeting of intervention and support• Increasingly effective partnerships with parents

and community

 

Outcomes – pupil level

• Better understanding of their ‘working at’ levels and what they need to do to improve

• Awareness of the ‘pupil voice’ informing teaching and learning in the focus subject

• Increased motivation and enjoyment in lessons• Increased rates of progress• Higher aspirations

 

Outcomes – school level

• Improved quality of teaching and learning and more effective use of Strategy and EMA resources

• Increased confidence in planning for a diverse range of pupils

• Higher expectations of pupils• More effective partnership with EMA colleagues• More effective partnerships with parents and communities

 

Outcomes at LA level

• Mainstreaming of minority ethnic achievement• Increased capacity to develop and sustain improvements

in the achievement of PBST heritage pupils• Establishment of effective networks for promoting and

disseminating effective practice

 

Raising the attainment of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Somali and Turkish heritage pupils – Guidance for developing inclusive practice is to be used with The management guide to support school leaders in developing a strategic approach to raising attainment

Guidance Materials

White Underachievement

Karamat Iqbal

 

1.Largest underachieving group

2.Multiple disadvantage - lack of ‘social capital’, least resilient

3.Excluded from race equality

4.No national strategy

5.Lacks ‘respectable’ representation

White underachievement – Key Points

 

• White 25000

• Black 1194

• Mixed 618

• Pakistani 601

• Indian 307

• Bangladeshi 231

GCSE/GNVQ No Passes 2003Nationally

 

• White boys on free school meals who did not achieve any GCSE passes in 2003 were “the largest of any group”SEU 2004

• “But lowest of all, in those average test results, are White working class boys” P Hewitt 2005

• White British on FSM, lowest achieving (5+ A*-C) at 20% DfES 2005

There is a problem!

 

• ‘Attention has sometimes focussed on the low attainment of deprived White boys but deprived White girls do not fare much better’

• 17% White British boys on FSM achieved 5+A*-C (50% non FSM)

• 24% White British girls on FSM achieved 5+A*-C (61% non FSM) DCSF 30.04.07

Underachieving White British pupils

 

White 2496 Pakistani 937 Black 381 Mixed 299 Indian 211

Birmingham pupils who did not achieve 5 A*-C 2007: 4795

 

1. Lack of cultural/linguistic resources

2. Disadvantaged by neighbourhood

3. ‘socio-economic disadvantage is more strongly associated with low achievement amongst White British pupils than among other groups’ DCSF 30.04.07

4. ‘Most ethnic groups have significantly smaller chances of being low achievers than White British’ and ‘White British students least able to weather economic disadvantage’ Cassen + Kingdon 2007

Foundational disadvantage

 

those tangible substances (that) count for most in daily lives of people: namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit…

The individual is helpless socially, if left to himself…If he comes into contact with his neighbour, and they with other neighbours, there will be an accumulation of social capital, which may immediately satisfy his social needs and which may bear a social potentiality sufficient to the substantial improvement of living conditions in the whole community.

The community as a whole will benefit by the co-operation of all its parts, while the individual will find in his associations the advantages of the help, the sympathy and the fellowship of his neighbours

Robert D. Putnam ‘Bowling alone’ 2000

Social capital

 

They don't mention us English

1. ‘Everyone hates the White working class male’- (Rod Liddle 14.11.04)

2. ‘The prejudice that still shames the nation’ – (Nick Cohen 16.03.08)

3. ‘We found a number of cases where teachers referred to diversity and ethnicity in a way that focused almost exclusively on minority ethnic groups and their cultures. White ethnicity ..was not considered’ (Diversity and Citizenship in the curriculum DfES 2007)

 

Who gives a damn about White underachievement!

• Trades unions!• The Church!• Political parties!• Media!• Equality campaigners!• Professionals!• Schools• Others

 

1. Acknowledge the problem2. Need for explicit strategy & resources3. Acknowledge & celebrate White ethnicity4. Parental & wider community involvement5. Seminars & workshops6. Investment into development of social/cultural capital7. What works!

Recommendations

 

Discussion

1. What are your issues?

2. In addressing underachievement, should we focus on:– Social class– Race– Gender

3. How to address political sensitivity surrounding White underachievement

  Research Opportunities

Karen Wilson

Amanda Daniels

Gail O’Brien

SEN Underachievement

 

• Many researchers have shown that lower sets contain a disproportionate number of boys, socially disadvantaged pupils, pupils from minority ethnic groups and summer-born children

Research

 

• Identification, assessment and monitoring

Over-representation and changing demographics• Evaluating provision

SEN provision is historical and not matched to changing priorities

Factors to consider regarding SEN pupil population

 

• Data analysis• Analysis of the learner, the environment,

teaching and learning styles• Identification of distinct cohorts and

monitoring for possible over representation• Review current provision• Re thinking old patterns of support• Prepare the ground for any new interventions• Fidelity regarding those interventions• Agreeing impact measures

What to consider?