changing schools - ucl institute of education

3

Changing Schools An evaluation of the effectiveness of transfer arrangements at age 11

HMI 550 Report from the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools

Changing Schools An evaluation of the effectiveness of transfer arrangements at age 11

HMI 550 Report from the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools

© Crown copyright 2002

Office for Standards in EducationAlexandra House33 KingswayLondonWC2B 6SE

Telephone 020 7421 6800Web site: www.ofsted.gov.uk

This document may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial or educational purposes, providedthat the information quoted is reproduced without adaptation and the source and date of publication arestated.

Changing Schools: Evaluation of the effectiveness of transfer arrangements at age 11

ii

Contents

IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________11

TThhee iinnssppeeccttiioonn ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________22

MMaaiinn ffiinnddiinnggss __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________22

PPooiinnttss ffoorr aaccttiioonn ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________33

MMaannaaggeemmeenntt ooff ttrraannssffeerr __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________44

TTrraannssffeerr ooff aasssseessssmmeenntt ddaattaa aanndd ootthheerr rreeccoorrddss ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________55

IInndduuccttiioonn pprrooggrraammmmeess ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________66

HHeellppiinngg ppuuppiillss ttoo ccooppee wwiitthh cchhaannggee ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________88

CCuurrrriiccuullaarr ccoonnttiinnuuiittyy ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________99

PPuuppiillss’’ ppeerrcceeppttiioonnss ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1122

QQuuaalliittyy ooff tteeaacchhiinngg iinn YYeeaarrss 66 aanndd 77 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1144

LLEEAA ssuuppppoorrtt ffoorr ttrraannssffeerr ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1155

CCoonncclluussiioonnss____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1166

AAnnnneexx AA:: NNaattiioonnaall CCuurrrriiccuulluumm tteesstt rreessuullttss aatt KKeeyy SSttaaggee 22 aanndd 33 __________________________________________________________________________________________1177

iii


iv

Introduction1. This report evaluates the effectiveness oftransfer arrangements for pupils changing schools atage 11.

2. The importance of secondary schools buildingeffectively and quickly on the achievement ofpupils as they move into Key Stage 3 has long beenemphasised. Attainment in national tests at the endof Key Stage 2 has risen significantly in recentyears, but, as reports from OFSTED have shown,too many pupils do not make enough progressfrom Year 6 to the end of Key Stage 3. Nationally,full inspections show that the quality of teachingnow declines between Year 6 – a high point inprimary schools – and Year 9.1

3. The government’s Key Stage 3 Strategy aimsto improve the quality of teaching, to enable pupilswho are falling behind to catch up, and to raisestandards generally. A key objective is to improveprogression across the key stages. The pilot of thestrategy began in September 2000 and the nationalprogramme in September 2001.2 The parts of thestrategy with particular implications for transfer are:

■ frameworks for teaching English andmathematics at Key Stage 3

■ a substantial programme of training for KeyStage 3 teachers

■ conferences in all LEAs on transition from Year 6to Year 7

■ catch up programmes in English (LiteracyProgress Units) and mathematics (Springboard7) in Year 7

■ summer schools

■ transition units for English and mathematics forYears 6 and 7

■ funding to support all secondary schools in theirefforts to improve transfer.

4. The introduction of the common transfer formby the DfEE in May 2000 provided schools with themeans to ensure that a minimum set of informationis transferred when pupils change school or keystage. The form contains basic information and arange of assessment data on individual pupils. It

includes a facility to attach additional informationabout pupils’ achievement. By June 2002, all schools,provided they have the capability, will be expectedto send and receive pupil data electronically usingthe common transfer file, removing the need forthe paper form.

The inspection5. During the summer term 2001, Her Majesty’sInspectors (HMI) visited 32 primary schools, twofor each of 16 partner secondary schools, in eightlocal education authorities (LEAs). They visited the16 secondary schools in the autumn term 2001.The small sample, broadly representative of schoolsnationally, included schools of varying size, with afull range of attainment profiles and in differentlocal circumstances. Some of the secondaryschools had as many as 40 partner primary schools;others were linked to no more than 10.

6. Four of the LEAs were involved in the pilot ofthe Key Stage 3 Strategy. Secondary schools in theother LEAs visited were just beginning to work onthe strategy as it was extended nationally. In viewof the timing of the inspection, the findings of thisreport offer a benchmark against which to judgethe impact of the strategy on progression fromprimary to secondary schools in the future.

7. The inspection focused on:

■ the management of the transfer programme andpupils’ induction into Year 7

■ the transfer of assessment data

■ the effectiveness of projects to promotecurriculum continuity

■ the quality of teaching in Year 6 and Year 7

■ the support provided to pupils for their learningin Year 7.

8. In the course of the visits, HMI:

■ conducted interviews with senior staff whomanage transfer

■ discussed transfer with Year 6 primary schoolteachers and heads of English and mathematicsdepartments in secondary schools

1

1 Standards and Quality in Education 2000/01: The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools (OFSTED,2002). A comparison ofthe trends of results in National Curriculum tests is given in the annex to this report. The annex also analyses the quality of teaching in Years 5-8 seen infull inspections in 2001/02.2 For an account of the aims and early work of the strategy, see The Key Stage 3 Strategy: evaluation of the first year of the pilot (OFSTED,2002).

■ held meetings with special educational needs(SEN) co-ordinators in secondary schools

■ observed teaching in Years 6 and 7 in eithermathematics or English

■ talked to small groups of pupils in Year 6 andagain when they had moved to Year 7.

Main findings9. Continuity in the curriculum and progression inlearning as pupils move from primary to secondaryschools are longstanding weaknesses of theeducation system. All the schools involved in thissurvey recognised the need to improve continuityand progression, but few of them were givingsufficient priority to a task that can be difficult andtime-consuming, especially where the schools havea large number of partners.

10. Arrangements between schools on thepractical and pastoral aspects of transfer helped tomake the move to secondary school a positiveexperience for pupils. Induction programmesemployed a range of effective ways of encouragingpupils to feel comfortable and confident in the newsetting.

11. The secondary schools were not building wellenough on what their Year 7 pupils had achieved inEnglish and mathematics in Year 6. They generallydid not know, in sufficient detail, what their newpupils could do, and they had not set targets forimproving attainment during Year 7.

12. Use of the common transfer form for KeyStage 2 was making the transfer of basicassessment data rather more consistent thanbefore, but there was still too much variation in theuse of the form and in the extent, quality and use ofadditional information.

13. Partner primary and secondary schoolsgenerally had little knowledge of their respectivepractices in assessing and recording progress andin setting targets. The National Literacy andNumeracy Strategies have improved themonitoring of pupils’ progress towards targets setat Key Stage 2. Little of this valuable informationwas finding its way to secondary school English andmathematics departments, however, and too muchtime was spent by secondary schools filling gaps bytesting pupils at the beginning of Year 7.

14. The early stages of the Key Stage 3 Strategywere prompting better liaison between primary andsecondary schools about aspects of teaching,

particularly in the pilot schools. The use of acommon lesson structure for English andmathematics in Years 6 and 7 was helping toimprove continuity in these subjects.

15. There was insufficient discussion betweenteachers in Key Stages 2 and 3 about the standardsof work expected of pupils and about approachesto teaching. Only a few of the primary andsecondary schools had programmes that helped toprepare pupils for the changes they wouldencounter in Key Stage 3.

16. A few of the LEAs in the survey were providingsupport for transfer arrangements, but it was rarelyused consistently across all the schools and therewas little evaluation of effectiveness.

Points for action17. There is a need for partner schools to:

■ agree a common approach on the additionalinformation to accompany the national commontransfer file, particularly in relation to key targetsfor improvements in pupils’ attainment inEnglish and mathematics

■ rationalise the amount of testing that takes placeat the beginning of Year 7

■ improve the continuity of the curriculum andteaching between Year 6 and Year 7, makinggood use of the frameworks for English andmathematics to focus on what pupils areexpected to cover and achieve

■ do more to help prepare pupils for anysignificant changes in teaching approachesbetween Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3

■ evaluate more systematically the impact oftransfer arrangements on the progress andattitudes of pupils

■ organise feedback to primary schools about theprogress made by pupils in Key Stage 3.

18. LEAs can assist these improvements by:

■ promoting the consistent and efficient use ofthe common transfer file for passing on dataelectronically

■ supporting schools in assessing the quality andimpact of transfer arrangements anddisseminating examples of effective practice.


2

Management of transfer19. In most of the primary schools in the surveythe management of Key Stage 2/3 transfer wasusually the responsibility of either the headteacheror deputy headteacher. In larger schools, it wassometimes delegated to a Year 6 teacher or to theschool assessment co-ordinator. Some schoolsmade good use of administrative staff to organisethe collation of transfer information. Very few ofthe primary schools allocated specific non-contacttime to staff to manage transfer and this restrictedthe range and depth of what they were able to do.

20. The management of the transfer programme inthe secondary schools was shared, appropriately,between one or two key members of staff, such asthe head of Year 7 or the lower school, with a memberof the senior management team having overallresponsibility. Some larger secondary schoolsshared the responsibility between two or threeteachers, often separating the co-ordination ofassessment data from the running of Year 6/7induction programmes. Some schools had creatednew posts, such as co-ordinator of Key Stage 3, tointroduce a more systematic approach.

21. In most of the secondary schools, specialeducational needs (SEN) co-ordinators or heads oflearning support departments had significantinvolvement with the transfer of pupils. SEN staffwere often involved in a helpful way in the Year 6induction days and the introductory informationevenings for prospective Year 7 parents. A fewlearning support departments organised additionalfamiliarisation days for individuals or groups ofpupils with SEN who were likely to find the changeof school difficult. A small number of secondaryschool SEN co-ordinators visited the primary schoolbefore other members of staff to attend reviewmeetings with pupils, teachers and parents. Littleattention was given to identifying and meeting theneeds of gifted and talented pupils.

22. All of the primary schools recognised that goodarrangements for the transfer of pupils is important;however, it was low on their list of priorities.Improving Key Stage 2/3 transfer did not featurespecifically in any of the school improvement plans.The position was similar in the secondary schools.Apart from the Key Stage 3 Strategy in general,very few of the secondary schools had identifiedtransfer explicitly as an issue for the school to tackleand had specific, costed initiatives in their actionplan to improve provision. Only one school includedtransfer issues in subject departments’ action plans.

Transfer of assessment dataand other records 23. The secondary schools reported too muchvariation in the range and quality of informationthey receive and its timing to enable tutor groupsand subject classes to be formed on the basis of theinformation received. There was inconsistency inthe quality of the information provided onindividual pupils across the LEAs and from schoolto school within an LEA. It was this variation inquality that led almost all of the secondary schoolsto carry out tests of their own in the autumn term,usually cognitive assessment tests, a reading testand standardised tests in English and mathematics.While the reasons for this additional testing in Year7 are understandable, it represents considerableduplication of effort when Year 6 pupils havealready been assessed in most aspects of the coresubjects at the end of Key Stage 2.

24. A majority of the schools used the commontransfer form to record teacher assessments andpupils’ personal details. The statutory test data arenot available until July, but secondary schoolsrequire information on the pupils well before theend of the summer term. Consequently, some ofthe primary schools met the requests of theirpartner secondary schools for earlier information byproviding it on a combination of national, LEA andschool transfer forms, with inevitable duplication ofinformation.

25. Very few of the primary schools provided moredetailed information about pupils’ performance,other than the National Curriculum levels and testscores, and it was rarely requested by thesecondary schools. Non-core subject records,curricular targets and illustrative work samples togo with them usually remained with the primaryschool. The amount of documentation sent fromKey Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 in some of the LEAs hadreduced significantly, usually at the request ofsecondary teachers who did not have enough timeto use it. The absence of this more detailedassessment information restricts the ability ofsecondary schools to ensure that pupils in Year 7make the early progress of which they are capable.

26. Curricular target-setting in English andmathematics at Key Stages 1 and 2 and, inparticular, the setting of individual and grouptargets for pupils’ writing, were widespread in theprimary schools. They have also developedexpertise in analysing pupil attainment data andmonitoring pupils’ progress across Key Stages 1

3

and 2, including the use of the Qualifications andCurriculum Authority (QCA) optional tests to trackyear-on-year progress and help to set targets. Inalmost every case, curricular targets were neitherrequested by nor transferred to the partnersecondary schools.

27. The requirement for secondary schools to setnumerical targets for Key Stage 3 tests was beingintroduced at the time of this survey. Most of thesecondary schools in the survey were alreadysetting targets for pupils’ performance in the KeyStage 3 tests, but few set interim targets for pupilsin Years 7 and 8 or had systems to track pupils’progress in the core subjects. Only one school hadanalysed Key Stage 2 test results and used them tohelp set targets for Year 7 pupils. Overall, therewere wide variations in schools’ expectations ofpupils’ progress during Key Stage 3. Oneheadteacher had challenged heads of departmentto raise pupils’ attainment in the core subjects byone and a half National Curriculum levels; anotherconsidered an improvement of one levelsufficiently challenging.

28. Very few of the primary schools understoodhow their partner secondary schools used theinformation they provided or how targets were setat Key Stage 3. Little discussion took place betweenprimary and secondary headteachers about theusefulness of the testing that was done, the valueof the records that were passed on or about otherinformation that could be used to improveprogression from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3. Acomment from one primary headteacher was thatKey Stage 3 is ‘a bit of a mystery’ and that, ingeneral, secondary schools tell them what theyrequire and the primary schools send it to them.Few of the primary and secondary schools had up-to-date knowledge of each other’s methods ofassessment and target-setting, or discussed theusefulness of the processes they used.

29. Information was not usually being transferredelectronically, although the schools in two LEAshad begun to use e-mail or CD-ROMs to transferdata. In one secondary school, this approachenabled teachers, form tutors and heads ofdepartment to have better access to relevantinformation electronically in their classrooms.However, in the LEAs where good practice in theelectronic transfer of assessment data was beingdeveloped, difficulties occurred where not allschools subscribed to the arrangements. Problemsof software compatibility and the preference ofsome schools to introduce their own local transfer

documentation had prevented other LEAs fromestablishing similar systems.

Induction programmes30. Most of the secondary schools provided asatisfactory induction programme, organised in theautumn and summer terms prior to transfer, forYear 6 pupils and their parents.

31. The induction programme enabled prospectivepupils and their parents to visit the secondaryschool to find out about the Key Stage 3 curriculumand other facilities. In some areas, parents andpupils visited a number of secondary schoolsbefore making an application to the preferredschool.

32. After the autumn term of Year 6, the secondaryschools had little contact until pupils learned whichsecondary school they would be attending. A smallnumber of primary schools reported some difficultyfor parents in LEAs where admission to thepreferred school was not guaranteed and appealswere lodged. This caused uncertainty for thepupils, who could be disappointed after thepositive experience of visiting a preferredsecondary school, and some disruption to thecompiling of accurate lists of pupils transferring tosecondary schools.

33. Nearly all the secondary schools released amember of staff responsible for primary/secondarytransfer to visit partner primary schools during thesummer term and before the induction days. Thevisits were used, appropriately, to make contactwith Year 6 teachers and pupils, to collectassessment and other information, to explainprocedures for the induction day and to answerquestions. The amount of time devoted to thiscontact, and its quality, varied from school toschool. Where secondary teachers spentconsiderable time with both pupils and teachers toensure that the quality of information given andreceived was good, primary schools were positiveabout the visits and pupils felt much moreconfident about transfer. At the same time, pastoralstaff and subject teachers in Year 7 were betterinformed.

34. Primary schools with several partner secondaryschools often found practice varied from school toschool, with small groups or single pupils notvisited by a representative of the school to whichthey would be transferring. Secondary schools withlarge numbers of partner primary schools faced amore difficult task in enabling staff to visit all their


4

prospective pupils for a worthwhile amount oftime. Nevertheless, there were two examples ofsecondary schools in these circumstances that felttransfer sufficiently important to ensure that alltheir Year 6 pupils were seen.

35. Most of the Year 6 pupils attended a singleinduction day for prospective Year 7 pupils, usuallyin July preceding the term of entry. Somesecondary schools invited new pupils to take part ina longer programme over two days, althoughsometimes using the second day for testing. Theintroductory visit helped pupils gain familiarity withsome of the school buildings and routines and tomeet form tutors. In schools where older pupilswould act as mentors to Year 7 pupils, they metthem on the induction day.

36. Pupils’ attendance at induction days wascomplicated when Year 6 pupils were visitingdifferent secondary schools on different days. Theproblem was overcome in one LEA by arrangingthe Year 7 introductory day on the same date.Some schools invited parents of Year 6 pupils toattend another information evening on or aroundthe same day in order to explain procedures, meetYear 7 form tutors and answer questions.

37. Some primary schools were also visited by thesecondary school SEN co-ordinator or head oflearning support, either on or close to the day onwhich the head of Year 7 visited, to gatherinformation and meet pupils with special educationalneeds. These visits were considered particularlyvaluable by primary schools and were used to easetransfer for these pupils. There was often anextended personal interview with pupils andparents or additional visits to the secondary school.

38. Continuing contact between the primary andsecondary schools enhanced good induction andtransfer arrangements, although few of the primaryschools had any say in the planning andorganisation of Year 6 pupils’ introduction tosecondary school. Examples of good practice insocial and pastoral induction that improved theknowledge of Year 6 pupils and teachers aboutwhat happens in Year 7 included:

■ the sending of newsletters from the secondaryschool to inform Year 6 pupils and their teachersof the events and activities organised in KeyStage 3

■ a ‘moving on’ booklet, initiated by the LEA, inwhich pupils write about themselves andcomplete activities related to changing schools

■ correspondence between Year 6 and Year 7pupils to enable new entrants to ask questionsabout experience in Year 7

■ follow-up receptions for Year 6 teachers to meetYear 7 pupils to discuss the experience ofchanging schools.

39. To help pupils to settle more quickly into Year7, one school allocated a suite of adjoiningclassrooms as Year 7 form rooms; the corridorconnecting the classrooms contained displays ofpupils’ work from Year 6 and Year 7. The sameschool organised a three-day residential visit forYear 7 pupils early in the autumn term to give themand their tutors an opportunity to buildrelationships and a year-group identity. Anotherschool allocated the first day of the autumn termfor the introduction of Year 7 pupils, with the rest ofthe school starting a day later.

40. A small number of the secondary schoolsarranged meetings for parents and form tutors earlyin the autumn to review the first few weeks ofterm. One school used a pupil journal as a focus fordiscussions. Another used a questionnaire tomeasure pupils’ levels of anxiety before and aftertransfer on issues such as homework and bullying.Most secondary schools, however, gave littlefeedback to primary schools on pupils’ progressafter the first term in Year 7. Few organised follow-up discussions with primary schools once pupilshad transferred.

41. The primary schools believed parents andpupils to be generally positive about the transferarrangements and induction programmes.However, neither primary nor secondary schoolsevaluated parents’ and pupils’ views in any formalway. One secondary school asked pupils tocomplete an evaluation form which enabled it tojudge the quality of its programme from the pupils’perspective.

Helping pupils to cope withchange 42. When moving to secondary school, pupilsencounter a number of changes: equipment,school uniform, a variety of classrooms, seatingarrangements, a wider range of teaching styles anddifferent expectations about homework, ways oflearning and independent study. Few schools havethought carefully enough about these changes.There was generally little, if any, discussion taking

5

place between Year 6 and Year 7 teachers aboutpreparing pupils for the changes, although oneschool was embarking on a pilot project exploringpupils’ preferred learning styles.

43. The primary schools knew little about what thesecondary schools were doing to help pupils adaptto the changes at Key Stage 3. Most primaryschools saw the transfer of pupils from Year 6 toYear 7 as the end of their influence and interest,although a small minority retained contact in theautumn term to follow up pupils’ progress and welfare.

44. In most secondary schools, tutor groupsplayed a key part in helping pupils to manage theintroduction to Year 7. These daily meetings weresometimes supplemented by a longer weeklysession which was often part of the personal, socialand health education (PSHE) programme. Tutorgroup meetings provided an opportunity for formtutors to discuss issues such as managing homeworkand establishing friendships. Some secondaryschools introduced topics related to transfer inPSHE programmes which helped to tackle some ofthe issues pupils might encounter in their first term.One school’s autumn term programme had units on:

■ the first week at school

■ changes, making a new start

■ study skills, organisation and homework

■ bullying

■ using the student planner

■ looking back over the first term.

45. Almost all Year 7 pupils took part in anintroduction to the library at the beginning of theautumn term, but few schools built on this topromote independent study skills through the useof their libraries. Secondary school librarians hadlimited involvement in the transfer process.

46. All the secondary schools provided Year 7pupils with a homework planner or journal whichthey saw as an important way of helping pupils toorganise themselves and their work in Key Stage 3.Some schools provided pupils with an opportunityto complete homework in school, often in thelibrary, offering librarian or teaching assistantsupport during these sessions. Some Year 7 pupils,however, were unaware of the homework club orother library and information and communicationtechnology (ICT) facilities which were available tothem. Most of the primary schools set homeworkregularly up to the national tests in May, including

expecting pupils to record assignments in a homeworkdiary. In too many schools, however, homeworkbecame irregular after the tests were over andpupils lost the good work habits that wereestablished at the beginning of Year 6.

47. A few of the secondary schools used olderpupils as mentors or ‘buddies’ to support Year 7pupils, either during the school day or in PSHE andtutor group sessions. One school offered additionalreading support to Year 7 pupils by organising agroup of Year 12 reading mentors. Another schoolestablished a friendship support group for a smallnumber of pupils who needed help with buildingrelationships; this was managed well by the SENco-ordinator. All of these arrangements werehelping Year 7 pupils to settle in more quickly.

48. Year 7 pupils may have the opportunity toexercise some responsibility in their first year in KeyStage 3, particularly if the school has a studentcouncil with representatives of all year groups orsports captains for inter-form competitions.Although responsibilities for the Year 7 pupils didnot match those they had had in Year 6, pupilsrealised they had a greater responsibility formanaging themselves and this provided most ofthem with sufficient challenge in Year 7.

Curricular continuity 49. Teachers in all of the schools recognised theimportance of continuity in pupils’ learning. Goodcontinuity in learning means that pupils should notrepeat what they have already learned or have toattempt things that are beyond them. In the surveyschools, however, teachers from Key Stage 2 and 3rarely came together to discuss their respectiveteaching programmes or the standards theyexpected pupils to achieve. The primary schoolshad only limited knowledge of the Key Stage 3curriculum or the Key Stage 3 Strategy frameworks.Where there had been contacts of this kind in thesurvey schools in the past, and where they hadbeen reduced, the primary headteachers attributedthis to the demands of implementing nationalinitiatives.

50. The Key Stage 3 Strategy frameworks forEnglish and mathematics provide detailed guidanceon how to achieve continuity in learning. Most ofthe secondary schools, particularly those in the KeyStage 3 pilot LEAs, had reviewed their teachingprogrammes in English and mathematics to takeaccount of the Frameworks for teaching thesesubjects in Year 7. Few primary or secondary


6

schools were using bridging units to link the KeyStage 2 and Key Stage 3 programmes. Where theywere used, they usually were the Qualifications andCurriculum Authority (QCA) mathematics units(mostly algebra), with teaching in place in Year 6and planned for follow-on in Year 7. This involveduseful discussion of the cross-phase teachingprogramme between secondary schoolmathematics departments and Year 6 teachers.

51. In the schools visited, there was no successfuluse of bridging units to promote continuity inEnglish. Although one school had developed itsown English unit, it had encountered difficultieswith its organisation and the choice of appropriatetexts and other materials to match pupils’ needs.Primary and secondary schools with multiplepartners face particular difficulties with the use oftransition units unless they can be confident that allthe partners are using them. Although thetransition units produced by the Key Stage 3Strategy are designed to ‘stand alone’, there couldbe an issue for secondary schools when they beginto use them in 2002 if some of their pupils havedone the Year 6 units and some have not.

52. In those secondary schools that admit pupilsfrom a large number of primary schools, co-ordinating a project in which all, or most, of theirpartner primary schools are involved iscomplicated. As a result, some secondary schoolstend to work more closely with larger primaryschools or organise events to which local Year 6pupils are invited. For example, a few schools in thesurvey introduced Saturday master classes inmathematics, science or design and technology,which were open to Year 6 pupils before theirtransfer to Year 7.

53. Professional development involving teachersfrom both key stages can also help continuity, but,although the survey schools recognised this, fewwere putting it into practice. Some schools hadarranged joint training in the past, but morerecently the focus had been almost exclusively onspecific key stage training. In a very few exampleswhere joint professional development days hadtaken place, they had been successful in promotinga better understanding of the curriculum andteaching approaches. One school organised a verysuccessful ‘arts in the community’ day at whichsecondary school teachers led workshops in thecreative arts. Teachers from Key Stages 1, 2, 3 and4 attended these and all local partner primaryschools were represented. The day provided auseful forum for discussion of curriculum issues

and teaching strategies. Such days tend not to beorganised, however, as part of an overall strategicapproach to improving curricular continuity.

54. Many secondary departments had organisedvisits for English and mathematics teachers toobserve the teaching of literacy and mathematics inYear 6. Some schools arranged for all members of adepartment to observe a literacy hour or dailymathematics lesson; others sent only one teacher.In many cases, the secondary teachers hadbenefited from the observations. They had beenimpressed with the standards shown by Year 6pupils and this had raised their expectations ofwhat these pupils could achieve in Year 7. Toooften, however, these visits ended withoutsufficient discussion of teaching approaches orlesson outcomes.

55. The headteacher, deputy headteacher andhead of English in one secondary school had madea visit to a primary school with objectives for thevisit clearly identified. These were framed asquestions:

■ How is literacy taught in Key Stage 2 and, inparticular, in Year 6?

■ What strategies does the teacher use to engagepupils in interactive learning?

■ What structural and organisational featuresmake up the literacy hour?

■ How are learning resources used by the teacherand pupils?

56. The secondary school team intended to usetheir experiences to promote debate on theteaching of literacy in Key Stage 2 amongstsecondary school staff, prior to the introduction ofthe Framework for English at Key Stage 3.

57. The Year 6 teachers had not been given anopportunity to observe and discuss teaching in Year7 in order to increase their knowledge andunderstanding of teaching at Key Stage 3 or of thework the pupils would be doing. The absence ofsuch opportunities limits the ability of primaryschool teachers to contribute to discussion aboutimproving continuity and progression between KeyStages 2 and 3.

58. In a few of the survey schools, a range ofuseful contacts had been made which were helpingto build understanding between teachers and tobridge the gap between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage3. Often, however, these did not involve all the

7

partner primary schools and, consequently,benefited only a proportion of the Year 6 pupilstransferring. One primary headteacher felt suchinitiatives demonstrated that secondary schoolswere making ‘an investment in their futurestudents’. There were several examples of this inthe survey schools:

In one primary school, teachers had identified a need toaddress the low number of pupils gaining level 5 inscience. A request was made to the secondary schoolscience department to help to provide a structuredteaching programme to raise attainment. Cross-phasemeetings were also organised to discuss teaching inEnglish and mathematics in Year 6 and Year 7.

One secondary school had a member of the physicaleducation department deployed for 50% of the time incommunity outreach work. This included working withlocal primary schools in providing in-service training forteachers and in teaching primary pupils. The secondaryschool swimming pool and gymnasium were used well tosupport this initiative.

A specialist school had organised a number of projects inmathematics, science, and design and technology wheresecondary teachers worked with small numbers of Year 6pupils and their teachers on subject-specific projects.

In another school, a number of curriculum links had beenestablished across a range of subject departments,including:

■ an analysis of Year 6 National Curriculum science testpapers by the secondary school science department

■ the display of primary pupils’ art work in secondaryschool exhibitions

■ the attendance by secondary music teachers at primaryschool concerts and musical evenings

■ the sharing of equipment and support for primaryschool sports days

■ the provision of sports coaching at weekends for Year6 pupils’ extra-curricular activities

■ ICT training and technical support, as well as thedonation of funds specifically to improve the primaryschool’s ICT equipment.

Pupils’ perceptions59. All the Year 6 pupils interviewed spokepositively about their experiences in primaryschool. In almost all cases, they talkedenthusiastically about the aspects of school life thatmost appealed to them, what lessons and otheractivities they preferred and those that proveddifficult and challenging. Year 6 teachers came infor special praise, as did a number of headteachers.Most Year 6 pupils appreciated the challenge andsupport given to them by the teachers and teachingassistants. They rarely expressed concerns or worries;pupils who had experienced difficulties talkedpositively about the way the schools had resolved

their problems. Year 6 pupils in their final term atprimary school were generally confident and positive.

60. Almost all pupils interviewed made positivecomments about their daily mathematics lesson andthe literacy hour. They described which parts theypreferred and what they found difficult andchallenging. Most pupils enjoyed the fast pace oflearning and the interactive nature of the teaching,particularly work on shared texts in the literacyhour and oral and mental work in the mathematicslessons. In schools where curricular target-settingwas established, pupils were able to talk about theirown targets and to explain what they needed to doto improve.

61. In all the primary schools visited, Year 6 pupilssaid that they were given homework to complete.The amount, type and regularity of homeworkvaried from school to school and responses frompupils in the same school were not always consistent.Most homework they received was in English andmathematics and took up to 30 minutes each night;some pupils reported having as little as 30 minutesa week. Pupils felt that there was less emphasis onhomework after the National Curriculum tests hadbeen completed.

62. Many Year 6 pupils interviewed heldresponsibilities in their school, helping with its day-to-day running. Responsibilities included a range ofmonitoring tasks in classrooms and the playground,helping with the supervision of younger pupils,organising equipment and collecting and deliveringresources, membership of a school council,representing the school in sports and other events,preparing resources for school assemblies andescorting visitors around the school.

63. Most pupils in Year 6 looked forward tomoving to secondary school, albeit with someapprehension. Concerns about bullying were thesingle most mentioned issue. Many pupils talkedpositively about the greater range of experiencesand challenges they hoped would be available tothem at secondary school. Pupils transferring as agroup to a particular secondary school felt secure inthe knowledge that they would be ‘in it together’.Some were looking forward to making new friendsand appreciated that now was the time to move on.

64. Although pupils had not attended the Year 7induction days before they were interviewed in thesurvey, many schools had had visits from the headsof Year 7 which, in most cases, had given pupils theopportunity to ask questions. This had helped toreduce anxiety, particularly through reassuranceabout secondary school policies on bullying.


8

65. Only a minority of pupils felt that thesecondary schools would know something aboutthem and the work they had been doing in Year 6.A small number were aware that written reportswould be sent to the secondary school, givingdetails of their National Curriculum test results andattitudes to learning. The majority, however, wereunaware of what information was transferred.

66. When the pupils were interviewed again inYear 7, almost all were positive about the start theyhad made in Key Stage 3: they had retained theirhigh expectations and were keen to do well. In themain, they were confident and enjoying school.Many had found the Year 6 induction days helpfuland appreciated the support they had received.Pupils who had experienced additional inductionactivities were particularly positive about theexperience and understood the rationale behindpromoting good relationships across the yeargroup. However, little formal evaluation had beencompleted to consider pupils’ views on the startthat they had made in Key Stage 3.

67. Most pupils were enjoying their lessons in Year7, particularly those of a practical nature and thosewhich were different from their primary schoolexperience, such as science, design and technologyand physical education. For the majority, lessons inEnglish and mathematics were similar to thoseexperienced in Year 6, although a few pupilscommented they were repeating work they hadencountered before or that lessons were too easy.Few pupils had received any useful feedback ontheir work or on how well they were doing in Year7. In contrast, most pupils when they had been inYear 6 knew at which National Curriculum level theywere working and had been used to having theirown curricular targets. The practice of setting suchtargets in core subjects at Key Stage 3 was rare.

68. Several pupils thought there was too muchhomework in Year 7. Homework varied from schoolto school and from subject to subject within aschool. Pupils reported amounts from two or threehours to as much as ten hours a week, although, asone pupil expressed it, ‘Homework takes as long asit takes’. All pupils understood the sanctions forfailing to complete homework, although they feltthat teachers were inconsistent in applying them.All pupils had homework diaries or journals inwhich to record assignments and other informationto enable them to manage their learning. Pupilsgenerally showed these to parents who were askedto countersign them.

69. Although most pupils had had their anxietiesabout secondary school reduced, they made anumber of suggestions about how their adjustmentto secondary school could be eased. They wereparticularly critical of :

■ poor supervision at lunchtimes

■ the unfriendliness of some older pupils

■ the absence of storage lockers which meant thatthey had to carry equipment and books fromlesson to lesson

■ no dedicated recreational space for Year 7pupils

■ insufficient personal support from teachers.

Quality of teaching in Years 6and 7 70. In Year 6, all the schools visited continued toteach English and mathematics throughout thesummer term, with pupils receiving a dailymathematics lesson and literacy hour. The qualityof teaching was at least satisfactory in all lessonsobserved. In mathematics, the teaching in six out often lessons was good or very good; in English, itwas good or very good in a slightly higherproportion.

71. The best lessons were planned thoroughly,conducted at a good pace and involved all pupils.Teachers made good use of direct teaching, had aclear idea of the learning objectives for the lessonand made these clear to pupils. There were highexpectations of pupils’ participation and teachersmade good use of assessment and interventions toenable pupils to make progress. They used a rangeof resources in both literacy and mathematicslessons, including overhead projectors fordemonstration and explanation in mathematics andshared text work in English, and flip charts andwhiteboards for illustrating, recording ordemonstrating. In several classes, pupils usedhand-held whiteboards to support mental andwritten calculations and for writing and drafting.

72. The teaching of either English or mathematicswas also observed in the Year 7 classes in theschools to which pupils transferred. The proportionof teaching that was good or very good was lowerthan in the Year 6 lessons. It was good in almost ahalf of the Year 7 lessons, satisfactory or better innine in ten lessons, but unsatisfactory in one in ten.1

9

3 The annex gives an analysis of teaching in Years 5-8 in full inspections of primary and secondary schools carried out in 2000/01

73. Most of the secondary schools visited hadrecently introduced a three-part lesson structureand had taken account of the Key Stage 3Frameworks for English and mathematics, then inpilot form, when planning schemes of work for Year7.

74. In the effective lessons, Year 7 teachers:

■ used their subject knowledge well

■ used a three-part lesson structure

■ recapped work from previous lessons andidentified learning objectives clearly for pupils atthe start of the lesson

■ identified key vocabulary and displayed it forpupils’ information

■ involved pupils in lively, interactive teachingwith good levels of challenge

■ used ICT effectively to support direct whole-class teaching

■ managed resources well, including hand-heldwhiteboards for interactive work

■ deployed teaching assistants well to helpindividuals and groups of pupils

■ displayed pupils’ work and subject-relatedmaterials and resources effectively

■ made good use of homework

■ provided pupils with work to do independentlythat was matched appropriately to their needs.

75. In the small proportion of lessons seen in Year7 that were unsatisfactory, the teachers’management of pupils’ behaviour was poor andthere was a general lack of engagement from thepupils. There were worrying signs of disaffectionamong some of the pupils at this early stage of Year7. The teachers did not know enough about whatthe pupils already knew or could do and thisresulted in a lack of challenge. This low level ofchallenge adversely affected pupils’ attitudes tolearning and contributed to some of the poorbehaviour. Weaknesses in transfer arrangementswere a contributory factor.

LEA support for transfer76. The survey schools received little guidance orsupport from LEAs on how to ensure effectivetransfer from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3. All the

LEAs planned and co-ordinated admissions andappeals and published information on transferprogrammes to parents. Some LEAs had well-established transfer forms that could be completedby primary schools and passed to partnersecondary schools. Two of the LEAs weredeveloping authority-wide electronic systems totransfer data from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3.There had been difficulties, however, with softwareand with a lack of participation by some schools. Afew of the LEAs had introduced systems, inaddition to the national common transfer form, forrecording information on achievement in theNational Curriculum that could be passed tosecondary schools. Transfer arrangements werecomplicated in one LEA where the age of transfervaried.

77. Successful projects developed by clusters ofschools had been made available to a wider groupof schools across a few of the LEAs and funding hasbeen directed towards innovative approaches inthe production of bridging units and othercontinuity projects. Few, if any, of these initiativeshad had an impact beyond the schools thatdeveloped them, however, and some had beendiscontinued in the schools in which they wereestablished originally. The LEAs were still keen tosupport good practice and some had supported anew round of projects, including work on improvingpupils’ motivation and study skills, and on trackingattainment and target-setting. However, the LEAswere doing little to monitor or evaluate the impactof transfer arrangements or curriculum continuityprojects.

78. The LEAs in the survey welcomed theintroduction of the Key Stage 3 Strategy as a meansof improving progression between Key Stages 2and 3. They recognised that schools are generallymore successful in managing the personal and socialimplications of transfer than in developingcurriculum continuity or common teachingapproaches.

Conclusions79. The pupils interviewed for this survey, afterthey had transferred to Year 7, had settled in well tosecondary school and had soon overcome anyfears they might have had about the new school.The pastoral aspects of transfer appear to haveworked well for them.

80. There is more to successful transfer than this,however. While there were useful developments in


10

the curricular aspects of transfer among the groupsof schools in the survey, they were isolated.Overall, schools were making limited progress inthis area. There was little sign that the surveyschools were tackling the need for improvement inthe continuity of the curriculum, ensuring pupilsmade better progress in Year 7, and preparing themfor the changes of teaching and learning theywould encounter in their new school.

81. The government has set ambitious targets forKey Stage 3 in 2004 and beyond, well above thosecurrently being achieved in English, mathematicsand science. The progress of schools towards thesedemanding targets is likely to be restricted whilethe weaknesses in continuity and progressionbetween Key Stages 2 and 3 remain.

82. Promoting continuity and progression is one ofthe key objectives of the Key Stage 3 Strategy.Central to the strategy are the frameworks for theteaching of the core subjects in Key Stage 3 andthe training being organised for all teachers.Funding for summer schools is being maintained,new transition units are being produced for Englishand mathematics for Years 6 and 7, and materialsfor catch-up programmes in Year 7 are nowavailable to all schools. There is also specificfunding to support all secondary schools in theirefforts to improve transfer. Along with the stepstaken nationally on the transfer of data, theseinitiatives provide the basis for a more deliberateand systematic approach to improving transfer thanhas been apparent in the past. They offer groundsfor optimism, but much needs to be done if theweaknesses described in this report are to beremedied.

11

Annex A: National Curriculum test results at Key Stage 2 and 3Comparisons between the increases in standards achieved at the end of Key Stage 2 and the end of KeyStage 3 since 1996 show bigger gains being made at Key Stage 2. Chart 1 shows an increase in English of 18percentage points for level 4 at Key Stage 2, compared with an increase of only seven percentage points forlevel 5 at Key Stage 3 over the same five-year period. The figures (chart 2) for mathematics show increases of19 and 9 percentage points for Key Stages 2 and 3, respectively.

\

Source: OFSTED

Quality of teaching in Years 5–9

Section 10 inspections in 2000/01 show a pattern of decline in the quality of teaching from Year 6 to Year 8.Charts 3 and 4 show a peak in the quality of teaching in Year 6 in English and mathematics, followed in Years 7and 8 by an increase in the amount of unsatisfactory teaching and a decline in the amount of excellent or verygood teaching.


12

Percentage of 11-year-old pupils achievingLevel 4 and above in English

Percentage of pupils attaining Level 5 orabove in Key Stage 3 English

Percentage of 11-year-old pupils achievingLevel 4 and above in mathematics

Percentage of pupils attaining Level 5 orabove in Key Stage 3 Mathematics

CChhaarrtt 11:: CCoommppaarriissoonn bbeettwweeeenn KKeeyy SSttaaggee 22 aanndd KKeeyy SSttaaggee33 tteesstt rreessuullttss iinn EEnngglliisshh oovveerr ttiimmee

CChhaarrtt 22:: CCoommppaarriissoonn bbeettwweeeenn KKeeyy SSttaaggee 22 aanndd KKeeyy SSttaaggee33 tteesstt rreessuullttss iinn mmaatthheemmaattiiccss oovveerr ttiimmee

Source: OFSTED

CChhaarrtt 33:: TTeeaacchhiinngg iinn EEnngglliisshh lleessssoonnss iinn pprriimmaarryy aanndd sseeccoonnddaarryy sscchhoooollss eexxcclluuddiinngg mmiiddddllee sscchhoooollss,, 22000000//0011 ((ffuullll iinnssppeeccttiioonn oonnllyy))

Source: OFSTED

CChhaarrtt 44:: TTeeaacchhiinngg iinn mmaatthheemmaattiiccss lleessssoonnss iinn pprriimmaarryy aanndd sseeccoonnddaarryy sscchhoooollss eexxcclluuddiinngg mmiiddddllee sscchhoooollss -- 22000000//0011 ((ffuullll iinnssppeeccttiioonn oonnllyy))

Source: OFSTED

13


14


16

Report from the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools

changing schools - ucl institute of education

Documents