The Good the Bad and the Ugly Descriptors

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Descriptors, SED and Of. STED Review of Grades Andy Connell & Kevin Mattinson, Keele University

Aims of Discussion § To share with colleagues the impact of inhouse grade descriptors and exemplification materials § To explore how the documents support self-evaluation and inspection § To discuss the challenges of a data-driven SED process § To discuss how descriptors and associated materials might develop and support C Standards, CPD, MTL

Impact of Grade Descriptors and Exemplification Materials (12 months on) § Background § Analysis of impact § Conclusions 3

Background § New Q standards § Existing descriptors not ‘fully fit for purpose’ § The vision of excellence § Training and development need § No TDA guidance at the time of development § Subject Professional Support Activity (ITTE)

Impact § ½ way through year § Research identified that the documentation was impacting positively on practice, but that further development of stakeholders was required to improve consistency of engagement. § It also noted some differences in practice between Professional (Senior) Tutors in schools and Subject Mentors.

Key findings (April 2008) § Trainees found descriptors helpful formatively § Trainees used descriptors and exemplification documents to arrive at judgements about evidence and achievement and to determine actions § The level descriptors were valuable in informing and framing the dialogue between the trainees and mentors in school; § Trainees more readily used Keele University exemplification material than that provided by the TDA. § .

Key findings (April 2008) § The majority of subject mentors used the exemplification material in their work with the trainees, to help set targets, to arrive at judgement at summative review points and to inform decisions about the appropriateness of evidence against the standards; § There was some variability across mentors in practice, with a minority not fully engaging with the descriptors or exemplification materials;

End of year (Summer 2008) § The evidence was that the majority of Professional Tutors used the descriptors successfully in a number of ways and for a number of purposes, including: § to inform dialogue with an Associate Teacher, providing a language for review and target setting; § to support the moderation of practice across all Subject Mentors, validating the work of the mentors; § to challenge trainees to review their own progress; § to review progress at summative points; § to inform the process of completing the Career Entry Development Profile (CEDP); § to support the completion of the end of placement report.

End of year (Summer 2008) § Descriptors used more than each of the sets of exemplification materials § Keele exemplification material used more extensively than TDA materials

End of year (Summer 2008) § Subject Mentors indicated that they found the Level Descriptors particularly valuable: § in setting points for discussions in weekly review meetings; § in providing a language for commentary on a lesson observation; § in support the feedback process after a lesson observation; § to highlight areas where action is required; § in supporting trainees in self-review; § in moderating judgement across subject staff involved in observation; § in informing professional dialogue with other teachers involved in training, to establish a common framework of understanding and expectations.

Conclusions § § § The new documentation that has been developed at the University did promote the improvements in practice we set out to achieve. The challenge to the institution was to continue to evaluate practice and impact more extensively and to revisit the training and development of school based mentors to bring about higher and more consistent levels of use. To this end, a detailed survey of all trainee teachers was undertaken and the outcomes of this survey have formed the basis of ongoing research § Ongoing improvement in engagement with descriptors § Growing effectiveness in self evaluation by trainees § Some variability in practice in respect of the use of support materials to justify and exemplify levelled performance § Continued improvement in target setting using the support materials

Developments 2008/9 § A particular focus for development has been the use of the documents and training materials formative assessment of trainee progress and the setting of development targets. § As we aligned our practice to ensure that we met the demands of the new Ofsted Inspection framework and the TDA’s SED (Self-Evaluation Document) process, this had a major influence in a decision to revise the descriptors.

SEFs and SEDs and the Review of Grades § How does Keele documentation support the SEF and SED processes? § SEF and SED and Review are very data driven § Tracking of trainee performance against targets is seen as a key part of these processes (trends) § The effectiveness of the descriptors gives us confidence that our data on trainee performance is accurate in terms of attainment and achievement

§ Keeping SEFs § Review of Grades § Identification of grade profiles over a 3 year cycle § Changes in levels with the move from QTT to Q § No ‘grading’ – best fit model § The challenge of matching with Of. STED § Confidence and justification § The use of Ofsted descriptors within inspection framework by subjects (English)

Review of Grades – Grade profiles (English) Subject and Year English 2005/06 English 2006/07 English 2007/08 End of Second (Consolidat ion) Placement Outcomes End of Third (Final) Placement Outcomes 4% Grade 1 35% Grade 1 17% Grade 2 52% Grade 2 78% Grade 3 14% Grade 3 0% Grade 1 36% Grade 1 58% Grade 2 52% Grade 2 42% Grade 3 12% Grade 3 27% Grade 1 68% Grade 1 73% Grade 2 22% Grade 2 20% Grade 2 11% Grade 3 Comments In 07/08 we were working for the first time with the new Standards. As part of the process of embedding these into practice and as a quality assurance measure, all mentors were visited during the Initial placement with a 10% sample involved in joint observations and debriefs in addition to all new mentors completing joint observations and debriefs. This was followed up with all mentors being required to do a joint observation and debrief during Consolidation and on the first visit of the Final placement. The second visit of the Final placement involved Curriculum Tutors attending the weekly mentor meeting to monitor, model, and moderate review and target-setting procedures. In addition to this, mentors reviewed lesson observation and subsequent targetsetting with respect to the Standards in mentor development meetings. We could then be assured that the assessment process was rigorous, monitored and moderated leading to a higher percentage of both accurate grading and a higher proportion of Grade 1 s. This has to be seen in the context of the recruitment and selection process which has been developed and made more rigorous over the last four years. Candidates with less than an upper second rarely gain a place on the course now and students are coming to the course with more experience than before. Many have had extensive time in schools on Student Associate Schemes or have worked on a voluntary or paid basis in English departments as Classroom Assistants or Cover Supervisors for considerable periods of time. They are thus in a much better position to understand what is required of them, are further along the line from the start and achieve much more quickly than students in the past. This is coupled with a more stable and bettertrained and developed group of mentors thus ensuring a higher standard than in pervious years. This is reflected in the figures which show a higher proportion of ATs gaining a Grade 2 by the end of Consolidation

Review of Grades – Grade profiles (English)

Supporting changes in the future § Planned changes to Descriptors § Use to support CEDP process

DISCUSSION § To consider the challenges of a datadriven SED process § To consider how descriptors and associated materials might develop and support C Standards, CPD/PPD, MTL § Standards/Competences and the European Dimension

Andy Connell PGCE Director Keele University Chancellor’s Building Keele Staffordshire ST 5 5 BG Kevin Mattinson Pro Vice-Chancellor and Head of Teacher Education Keele University Keele Staffordshire ST 5 5 BG Email: a. j. connell@ educ. keele. ac. uk Tel: 01782 733358 Email: k. g. mattinson@vco. keele. ac. uk Tel: 01782 734354