This post is the first stage of a potential development project.
It is my initial ‘aunt sally’ for a new best fit quality standard, intended to support schools and colleges to close performance gaps between high-achieving disadvantaged learners and their more advantaged peers.
It aims to integrate two separate educational objectives:
- Improving the achievement of disadvantaged learners, specifically those eligible for Pupil Premium support; and
- Improving the achievement of high attainers, by increasing the proportion that achieve highly and the levels at which they achieve.
High achievement embraces both high attainment and strong progress, but these terms are not defined or quantified on the face of the standard, so that it is applicable in primary, secondary and post-16 settings and under both the current and future assessment regimes.
I have adopted new design parameters for this fresh venture into quality standards:
- The standard consists of twelve elements placed in what seems a logical order, but they are not grouped into categories. All settings should consider all twelve elements. Eleven are equally weighted, but the first ‘performance’ element is potentially more significant.
- The baseline standard is called ‘Emerging’ and is broadly aligned with Ofsted’s ‘Requires Improvement’. I want it to capture only the essential ‘non-negotiables’ that all settings must observe or they would otherwise be inadequate. I have erred on the side of minimalism for this first effort.
- The standard marking progress beyond the baseline is called ‘Improving’ and is (very) broadly aligned with Ofsted’s ‘Good’. I have separately defined only the learner performance expected, on the assumption that in other respects the standard marks a continuum. Settings will position themselves according to how far they exceed the baseline and to what extent they fall short of excellence.
- The excellence standard is called ‘Exemplary’ and is broadly aligned with Ofsted’s ‘Outstanding’. I have deliberately tried to pitch this as highly as possible, so that it provides challenge for even the strongest settings. Here I have erred on the side of specificity.
The trick with quality standards is to find the right balance between over-prescription and vacuous ‘motherhood and apple pie’ statements.
There may be some variation in this respect between elements of the standard: the section on teaching and learning always seems to be more accommodating of diversity than others given the very different conceptions of what constitutes effective practice. (But I am also cautious of trespassing into territory that, as a non-practitioner, I may not fully understand.)
The standard uses terminology peculiar to English settings but the broad thrust should be applicable in other countries with only limited adaptation.
The terminology needn’t necessarily be appropriate in all respects to all settings, but it should have sufficient currency and sharpness to support meaningful interaction between them, including cross-phase interaction. It is normal for primary schools to find some of the language more appropriate to secondary schools.
It is important to emphasise the ‘best fit’ nature of such standards. Following discussion informed by interaction with the framework, settings will reach a reasoned and balanced judgement of their own performance across the twelve elements.
It is not necessary for all statements in all elements to be observed to the letter. If a setting finds all or part of a statement beyond the pale, it should establish why that is and, wherever possible, devise an alternative formulation to fit its context. But it should strive wherever possible to work within the framework, taking full advantage of the flexibility it permits.
Some of the terminology will be wanting, some important references will have been omitted while others will be over-egged. That is the nature of ‘aunt sallys’.
Feel free to propose amendments using the comments facility below.
The quality standard is immediately below. To improve readability, I have not reproduced the middle column where it is empty. Those who prefer to see the full layout can access it via this PDF
Emerging (RI) | Improving (G) | Exemplary (O) | |||||
The setting meets essential minimum criteria | In best fit terms the setting has progressed beyond entry level but is not yet exemplary | The setting is a model for others to follow | |||||
Performance | Attainment and progress of disadvantaged high achievers typically matches that of similar learners nationally, or is rapidly approaching this..Attainment and progress of advantaged and disadvantaged high achievers in the setting are both improving. | Attainment and progress of disadvantaged high achievers consistently matches and sometimes exceeds that of similar learners nationally..Attainment and progress are improving steadily for advantaged and disadvantaged high achievers in the setting and performance gaps between them are closing. | Attainment and progress of disadvantaged high achievers significantly and consistently exceeds that of similar learners nationally..
Attainment and progress matches but does not exceed that of advantaged learners within the setting, or is rapidly approaching this, and both attainment and progress are improving steadily, for advantaged and disadvantaged high achievers alike. |
Emerging (RI) The setting meets essential minimum criteria | Exemplary (O) The setting is a model for others to follow | |
Policy/strategy | There is a published policy to close excellence gaps, supported by improvement planning. Progress is carefully monitored. | There is a comprehensive yet clear and succinct policy to close excellence gaps that is published and easily accessible. It is familiar to and understood by staff, parents and learners alike.
. SMART action to close excellence gaps features prominently in improvement plans; targets are clear; resources and responsibilities are allocated; progress is monitored and action adjusted accordingly. Learners’ and parents’ feedback is routinely collected. . The setting invests in evidence-based research and fosters innovation to improve its own performance and contribute to system-wide improvement. |
Classroom T&L | Classroom practice consistently addresses the needs of disadvantaged high achievers, so improving their learning and performance. | The relationship between teaching quality and closing excellence gaps is invariably reflected in classroom preparation and practice.
. All teaching staff and paraprofessionals can explain how their practice addresses the needs of disadvantaged high achievers, and how this has improved their learning and performance. . All staff are encouraged to research, develop, deploy, evaluate and disseminate more effective strategies in a spirit of continuous improvement. |
Out of class learning | A menu of appropriate opportunities is accessible to all disadvantaged high achievers and there is a systematic process to match opportunities to needs. | A full menu of appropriate opportunities – including independent online learning, coaching and mentoring as well as face-to-face activities – is continually updated. All disadvantaged high achievers are supported to participate.
. All provision is integrated alongside classroom learning into a coherent, targeted educational programme. The pitch is appropriate, duplication is avoided and gaps are filled. . Staff ensure that: learners’ needs are regularly assessed; they access and complete opportunities that match their needs; participation and performance are monitored and compiled in a learning record. |
Assessment/ tracking | Systems for assessing, reporting and tracking attainment and progress provide disadvantaged high achievers, parents and staff with the information they need to improve performance | Systems for assessing, tracking and reporting attainment and progress embody stretch, challenge and the highest expectations. They identify untapped potential in disadvantaged learners. They do not impose artificially restrictive ceilings on performance.
. Learners (and their parents) know exactly how well they are performing, what they need to improve and how they should set about it. Assessment also reflects progress towards wider goals. . Frequent reports are issued and explained, enabling learners (and their parents) to understand exactly how their performance has changed over time and how it compares with their peers, identifying areas of relative strength and weakness. . All relevant staff have real-time access to the assessment records of disadvantaged high attainers and use these to inform their work. . Data informs institution-wide strategies to improve attainment and progress. Analysis includes comparison with similar settings. |
Curriculum/organisation | The needs and circumstances of disadvantaged high achievers explicitly inform the curriculum and curriculum development, as well as the selection of appropriate organisational strategies – eg sets and/or mixed ability classes. | The curriculum is tailored to the needs of disadvantaged high achievers. Curriculum flexibility is utilised to this end. Curriculum development and planning take full account of this.
. Rather than a ‘one size fits all’ approach, enrichment (breadth), extension (depth) and acceleration (pace) are combined appropriately to meet different learners’ needs. . Personal, social and learning skills development and the cultivation of social and cultural capital reflect the priority attached to closing excellence gaps and the contribution this can make to improving social mobility. . Organisational strategies – eg the choice of sets or mixed ability classes – are informed by reliable evidence of their likely impact on excellence gaps. |
Ethos/pastoral | The ethos is positive and supportive of disadvantaged high achievers. Excellence is valued by staff and learners alike. Bullying that undermines this is eradicated. | The ethos embodies the highest expectations of learners, and of staff in respect of learners. Every learner counts equally.
. Excellence is actively pursued and celebrated; competition is encouraged but not at the expense of motivation and self-esteem;hothousing is shunned. . High achievement is the norm and this is reflected in organisational culture; there is zero tolerance of associated bullying and a swift and proportional response to efforts to undermine this culture. . Strong but realistic aspirations are fostered. Role models are utilised. Social and emotional needs associated with excellence gaps are promptly and thoroughly addressed. . The impact of disadvantage is monitored carefully. Wherever possible, obstacles to achievement are removed. |
Transition/progression | The performance, needs and circumstances of disadvantaged high achievers are routinely addressed in transition between settings and in the provision of information, advice and guidance. | Where possible, admissions arrangements prioritise learners from disadvantaged backgrounds – and high achievers are treated equally in this respect.
. Receiving settings routinely collect information about the performance, needs and circumstances of disadvantaged high achievers. They routinely share such information when learners transfer to other settings. . Information, advice and guidance is tailored, balanced and thorough. It supports progression to settings that are consistent with the highest expectations and high aspirations while also meeting learners’ needs. . Destinations data is collected, published and used to inform monitoring. . |
Leadership, staffing, CPD | A named member of staff is responsible – with senior leadership support – for co-ordinating and monitoring activity across the setting (and improvement against this standard)..Professional development needs associated with closing excellence gaps are identified and addressed | The senior leadership team has an identified lead and champion for disadvantaged high achievers and the closing of excellence gaps.
. A named member of staff is responsible for co-ordinating and monitoring activity across the setting (and improvement against this standard). . Closing excellence gaps is accepted as a collective responsibility of the whole staff and governing body. There is a named lead governor. . There is a regular audit of professional development needs associated with closing excellence gaps across the whole staff and governing body. A full menu of appropriate opportunities is continually updated and those with needs are supported to take part. . The critical significance of teaching quality in closing excellence gaps is instilled in all staff, accepted and understood. |
Parents | Parents and guardians understand how excellence gaps are tackled and are encouraged to support this process. | Wherever possible, parents and guardians are actively engaged as partners in the process of closing excellence gaps. The setting may need to act as a surrogate. Other agencies are engaged as necessary.
. Staff, parents and learners review progress together regularly. The division of responsibility is clear. Where necessary, the setting provides support through outreach and family learning. . This standard is used as the basis of a guarantee to parents and learners of the support that the school will provide, in return for parental engagement and learner commitment. |
Resources | Sufficient resources – staffing and funding – are allocated to improvement planning (and to the achievement of this standard)..Where available, Pupil Premium is used effectively to support disadvantaged high achievers. | Sufficient resources – staffing and funding – are allocated to relevant actions in the improvement plan (and to the achievement of this standard).
. The proportion of Pupil Premium (and/or alternative funding sources) allocated to closing excellence gaps is commensurate with their incidence in the setting. . The allocation of Pupil Premium (or equivalent resources) is not differentiated on the basis of prior achievement: high achievers are deemed to have equal needs. . Settings should evidence their commitment to these principles in published material (especially information required to be published about the use of Pupil Premium). |
Partnership/collaboration | The setting takes an active role in collaborative activity to close excellence gaps. | Excellence gaps are addressed and progress is monitored in partnership with all relevant ‘feeder’ and ‘feeding’ settings in the locality.
. The setting leads improvement across other settings within its networks, utilising the internal expertise it has developed to support others locally, regionally and nationally. . The setting uses collaboration strategically to build its own capacity and improve its expertise. |
Those who are not familiar with the quality standards approach may wish to know more.
Regular readers will know that I advocate what I call ‘flexible framework thinking’, a middle way between the equally unhelpful extremes of top-down prescription (one-size-fits-all) and full institutional autonomy (a thousand flowers blooming). Neither secures consistently high quality provision across all settings.
The autonomy paradigm is currently in the ascendant. We attempt to control quality through ever-more elaborate performance tables and an inspection regime that depends on fallible human inspectors and documentation that regulates towards convergence when it should be enabling diversity, albeit within defined parameters.
I see more value in supporting institutions through best-fit guidance of this kind.
My preferred model is a quality standard, flexible enough to be relevant to thousands of different settings, yet specific enough to provide meaningful guidance on effective practice and improvement priorities, regardless of the starting point.
I have written about the application of quality standards to gifted education and their benefits on several occasions:
- A Comparative View of Gifted Education Quality Standards Part 1 and Part 2 (November 2011);
- Gifted Education Quality Standards: The Benefits Coda (November 2011)
Quality standards are emphatically not ‘tick box’ exercises and should never be deployed as such.
Rather they are non-prescriptive instruments for settings to use in self-evaluation, for reviewing their current performance and for planning their improvement priorities. They support professional development and lend themselves to collaborative peer assessment.
Quality standards can be used to marshal and organise resources and online support. They can provide the essential spine around which to build guidance documents and they provide a useful instrument for research and evaluation purposes.
GP
October 2014