Together Towards Improvement Selfevaluation is not an end

Together Towards Improvement Self-evaluation is not an end in itself. The process and the action which follows, when implemented effectively, will help to bring about important improvements in the quality of learning and teaching, the experience of the pupils and the standards that they attain. • • The purpose of self-evaluation is to: promote school effectiveness; improve the quality of learning and teaching; improve the experiences of the pupils; and raise the standards which the pupils attain.

What is Self-Evaluation? Self-evaluation is a process through which an individual teacher, groups of staff, the staff as a whole and senior management: – Reflect on their current practice – Identify and celebrate the strengths of the school;

The Process of Self-Evaluation • Is ongoing and sharply – focused, and involves monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of existing provision and the pupils’ achievements; • Recognises the need for the staff and governors to have a clear and agreed view of the school’s current stage of development and, through school development planning, to identify priorities which will have a positive effect on learning and teaching; • Informs and influences classroom practice and the quality of learning and teaching, and promotes development and improvement; and • Requires the staff to evaluate their work critically, reflect on the extent to which expectations are being realised in the work of the school, and establish a clear vision and future direction for the school

What is the Purpose of Self. Evaluation? The purpose of self-evaluation is to: • promote school effectiveness; • improve the quality of learning and teaching; • improve the experiences of the pupils; and • raise the standards which the pupils attain.

Together Towards Improvement Material provide a framework which may be useful to: • support individual schools with the development of their self-evaluation processes; • help schools to identify their strengths and areas for improvement; • assist the principal, staff and governors to incorporate action for improvement into the school development plan.

• The procedures used in the process of selfevaluation should be rigorous, comprehensive and fit for the purpose; • all those involved should be aware of the methods to be adopted and of their part in, and contribution to, the process; • the evidence obtained should be both qualitative and quantitative and be externally verifiable; • the sources of the evidence should include school and departmental documentation;

• the views of pupils, teachers, parents and the Board of Governors should be taken into consideration; • observation of classroom practice should be an integral part of the process of self-evaluation; • the outcomes of the evaluation should lead to action to achieve the intended improvements in teaching and learning.

English Department Visits

2001 – 2002 Aide - Memoire To promote improvement by: • Following up ‘Improving English and in particular the issues raised in para 2. 6 and 3. 6 • Gaining insights into how, and how effectively English Departments are reviewing and improving the quality of their provision

• What are the key areas identified for improvement in English? Provide an evaluation of: a. The assessment process that led to these priorities b. The appropriateness of the priorities in the light of your observations • Comment on the clarity and suitability of the Department’s expectations and goals.

• • Provide an evaluation of the Department’s strategy for improvement/development. Evaluate the impact of the development work on: a. the quality of the pupils’ learning b. the quality of teaching • Comment on any other aspects of the development work.

Key Areas Identified for Improvement (i) Nearly all schools had: • Identified areas for development; • Indicated development of ICT as a priority; • Indicated need to improve external examination results; • Indicated a need to improve resources (esp. library and ICT).

Key Areas Identified For Improvement (ii) Other areas identified included: • Presentation of work; • Revision of schemes of work and development of KS 3 resource; • Improvement in reading; • Setting targets; • Need to avoid over-directed teaching and over-reliance on text book exercises.

Key Areas for Improvement (iii) Increase inclusion of ICT; • Assessment including marking; • Developing a Literacy strategy; • Improvement in monitoring and evaluation strategies; • Provision for high achievers; • Extending pupils’ writing.

Evaluation of Process and Priorities (i) Where strengths outweighed weaknesses priorities were: • mostly appropriate; • linked to SDP; • based on reflection and evaluation of current practice.

Evaluation of Process and Priorities (ii) Characteristics of best practice: • linked to SDP; • systematic reflection and evaluation of current practice, context of school and needs of learners use of data e. g. CLASS; • emphasis firmly on improving quality of pupils’ learning and achievements.

Evaluation of Process and Priorities (iii) Less effective practice characterised by: • priorities a list of activities rather than areas for development; • priorities largely determined by external factors; • insufficient application of these to individual school context; • negligible link to SDP.

Evaluation of Process and Priorities (iv) • little evaluation of current departmental practice and provision; • emphasis on end of key stage rather than on improving quality for all pupils.

Clarity and Suitability of Expectations and Goals: Strengths (i) • appropriate priorities – effective learning and teaching strategies; • clear aims – contextualised; • aims linked to well-conceived classroom strategies – emphasis on learners • effective procedures for monitoring and evaluating success of initiatives.

Clarity and Suitability of Expectations and Goals: Strengths (ii) • development plan clear – intended outcomes justified; • plan and its format evidence clear thinking about relevant issues; • main focus – to target underachievement quickly.

Clarity and Suitability of Expectations and Goals: Areas for Development (i) • • Success criteria sound – but insufficient; reference to quality of work; not specific reference to ICT; department trying to do too much simultaneously – some of work too general; • aims appropriate but governed by external agenda rather than what and how to improve.

Clarity and Suitability of Expectations and Goals: Areas for Development (ii) • insufficient cognisance of good work being achieved; • focus is teacher-centred rather than learner-centred; • teachers not working collaboratively on shared goals; • no reference to costs, time, SMT, INSET.

Evaluation of Strategies for Improvement: Strengths • • • Under half of departments had more strengths than weaknesses Effective leadership of Ho. D; Ho. D and team shared a view of what makes for good English; good professional dialogue; improvement plan had clear starting point and clear view of what outcomes were intended; outcomes focused on benefits to pupils and what teachers needed to do.

Evaluation of Strategies for Improvement: Examples (i) • Examinattion/KS 3; • development of reading for enjoyment; • improved assessment > formative influence of teaching and learning; • inviting and listening to pupils’ views; • shared intended outcomes of lessons with pupils.

Evaluation of Strategies for Improvement: Examples (ii) • moderation of work used to provide critical evaluation of teaching and learning; • helping pupils become creative users of language; • writing – response partners; use of writing frames; • support for individuals e. g. organisation of coursework; • presentation of work – expectations.

Evaluation of Strategies for Improvement: Examples (iii) • occasional examples of very good work by individual teachers in spite of Ho. D; • also evidence of appropriate intended outcomes, based on good review strategies but methods to achieve were less clear.

Evaluation of Strategies for Improvement: where weaknesses outweighed strengths (i) • • Poor leadership of Ho. D; evidence gathering and talk but little action; no real assessment of current practice; intended improvements in writing through mechanistic language drills; • adoption of new procedures or resources without any clear rationale or understanding of why?

Evaluation of Strategies for Improvement: where weaknesses outweighed strengths (ii) • introducing changes or signing up for INSET without clear expectations of intended progress or improvement; • changes leading to over-teaching towards tests/examinations; • over-reliance on ‘gut-feeling’ at expense of systematic evaluation; • fractured approach.

Impact of Development Work on Learning and Teaching Here majority of departments evidenced more strengths than weaknesses; odd when compared with significant minority evidencing more strengths than weaknesses re strategy for improvement (prompt 4). Why? • where strength showed strength, impact was positive; • few departments standing still; • several departments – good teachers but poor leadership from Ho. D.

Impact of Development Work on Learning and Teaching • Importance of working as a team; • difficulty of identifying cause and effect • relationship between planning and practice; • occasionally key issues observed in practice and provision that were not included in development plan.

Impact of Development Work on Learning and Teaching: Examples (i) • Increased versatility of pupils as writers; • wider range of work discerned; • KS 3 work took on the rigour, focus and better planning that characterised KS 4; • focus on KS 4 – coursework and analysis of competences tested in examination;

Impact of Development Work on Learning and Teaching: Examples (ii) • extension of pupils’ oral skills > improved thinking and learning strategies; • tuning in – e. g. using interests of boys’ interests > increased motivation in reading; • improved marking and assessment.

Impact of Development Work on Learning and Teaching: Some Issues • ICT still not well used – in spite of No. F training • marking: correction of error at expense of quality or guidance for improvement; • development of oral competence; • over-structured learning programme; • skills mastery approach to writing.

The Main Strengths and Areas for Improvement identified in Inspections from 2002 -2004 • The Main Outcomes The main outcomes are based on: In 2002/2003 – 18 post-primary In 2003/2004 – 15 post-primary The Main Strengths in Post-Primary Identified are: in most schools: – the quality of much of the teaching; and In the majority of schools: – the ethos; – the standards achieved by the pupils in the areas under focus – the hard-working and conscientious teachers; and – the quality of the school’s procedures for pastoral care and child protection.

The main areas for improvement identified the need to: • use more effectively the available data to identify and prioritise areas for improvement; • introduce a rigorous process of monitoring and evaluation at whole-school and department levels; • develop more effective self-evaluation processes and to identify priorities which are included in the School Development Plan.

These areas for improvement in teaching and in post-primary include the need to: • disseminate more widely the examples of good practice within departments, and across the whole school; • widen the range of the pupils’ experiences and develop their oral skills; and • develop links across subject areas, particularly with English and ICT.

The areas identified for improvement in post-primary management included the need to: • use more effectively the available statistical information to identify and prioritise areas for improvement; • introduce an effective process of monitoring and evaluation at whole school and departmental levels; • develop more effective self-evaluation processes to review priorities which are then included in the SDP. Again the most significant of these was to monitor and evaluate more rigorously the quality of teaching and learning within the school and use the outcomes to identify priorities for the SDP.