Keith Grammar Curriculum Flexibility Project - Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Introduction
The Curriculum Flexibility Project initiated by Moray Council and the staff of Keith Grammar School (KGS) explores how to tackle lack of progress at S1/2 by offering the challenge of Standard Grade courses in S2. This entails the development of a revised 5-14 curriculum across 16 school departments, including provision of a new S1 course. This considerably strengthens and contributes to wider, strategic approaches adopted by the school to tackle under-achievement and low expectations by:
- increasing the pace and level of challenge in new S1 courses, which nevertheless still articulate well with P7;
- bringing Standard Grade into S2/3 to increase the pace and challenge in these two years;
- allowing more extensive progression throughout the larger cohort of pupils in S4/5/6;
- allowing deeper progression through an earlier start in Higher courses for more able pupils;
- improving articulation by enhancing S6 experiences.
Section 1-The Evaluation Aims and Methodology
The S1/S2 phase of the Curriculum Flexibility Project on which we report in this document, represents only the first stage of the curriculum reorganisation which is planned throughout the school, and which will extend through S3 to S6. There are many interesting and imaginative changes still in the planning stages which will be evaluated in phase 2 of the evaluation, 2004-2007.
Aims of the Evaluation
The overall aim of the evaluation project is to assess the successes of the processes and procedures of the early stages of the changes implemented in the first revised S1/S2 courses of the initiative, through data collection designed to allow the perspectives and experiences of school staff, the Primary Headteachers, pupils and parents to be articulated. The evaluation project started in February 2003 and ran until the end of May 2004. It has three main aims.
Aim 1 - National Priority: Framework for Learning
To evaluate the impact on the quality of and approaches to learning and teaching for staff and learners involved in the project through the implementation of the revised 5-14 curriculum across 16 school departments, beginning with the current S1 year group.
Aim 2 - National Priority: Learning for Life
To evaluate the views and experiences of parents of young people involved in the project and any impact on staff and pupils in cluster primary schools.
Aim 3 - National Priority: Achievement and Attainment
To evaluate in more quantitative terms any impact of the project on attainment, achievement, progression and levels of preparedness for the future, including careers guidance and post 5-14 subject choices.
Methodology
The methodology included interviews with the key stakeholders: secondary senior management team; and selected primary Headteachers, secondary teachers, focus pupils in the cohort and their parents, questionnaires to all the secondary staff, the pupil cohort and parents. In addition, observations were conducted of secondary classrooms; primary/secondary liaison activities and ASG meetings, together with attendance at parents' evenings, and scrutiny of Keith Grammar School documentation.
Section 2-Planning and Introducing The Changes
The Rationale and Consultation Phase
The school's (KGS) decision to move Standard Grade to S2 and S3 was developed as a consequence of the SMT examining both the national picture of underachievement at the end of S2 based on the HMI 'Standards in Quality' subject reports, and the school's own audit routines which indicated pupil dissatisfaction with S2. It was conceived by the Headteacher and developed in collaboration with the Local Authority and the SMT as a proposal for the staff to consider. In addition to the consultation with staff there was also a lengthy period of consultation which involved a number of other stakeholders: the Local Authority, the Primary Headteachers in the Associated Schools Group (ASG) and parents. (Sections 2.2, 2.3)
The Development Phase
During the development phase one of the Depute Headteachers led the extensive mapping and audit of the existing S1/S2 curriculum, which included examining whether any content and skills were being replicated in some subject areas. Subsequently, a number of staff were involved in re-writing the curriculum in all subject areas to produce a revised S1 curriculum ready for implementation in August 2002. During the process the SMT consulted with other Local Authorities to identify similar initiatives elsewhere and some staff visited other schools to observe their practice. (Section 2.4)
The Primary Headteachers' Perceptions of the Project and the Consultation Process
The Primary Headteachers' who were interviewed welcomed the introduction of moving Standard Grade to S2/S3 and the potential benefits to the pupils. They felt they had been consulted both at Associated Schools Group (ASG) meetings and by visits to the individual schools. They did not expect the proposed changes to involve any demands additional to the routine processes of primary/secondary liaison. (Section 2.5)
The Secondary Teachers' Perceptions of the Project and the Consultation Process
The majority of the secondary teachers who were interviewed were generally positive despite their realisation of all the work which it would clearly involve. The anticipated advantages included maintaining the momentum of the enthusiasm brought from primary school; offering a curriculum progression better matched to low attainment pupils; advancing the pace for high attaining pupils. Their initial concerns expressed centred on: the maturity of the pupils at key points (e.g. choice of subjects, sitting key exams a year earlier than those in other schools); the ability of low attainers to keep up with a faster pace in the curriculum; ensuring that all essential knowledge and skills were covered; and having too many formal examinations from S3 onwards. (Section 2.6.2; 2.6.3)
The staff had been supported through being allocated some development time or money to develop courses and through departmental meetings and discussions. (Section 2.6.4)
Section 3-Changes in the S1 Curriculum
The Primary and Secondary Liaison Activities
Were 5-14 elements normally done in S1 moved down into primary and, if so, how well did primary pupils and teachers cope? Did Primary teachers need special training for this and if so how was it delivered?
Overall it appeared that the prior existence of an active and effective ASG paved the way for liaison activities which were supportive of the changes and put little pressure on the primary schools. The processes evidenced included:
- Continuation of the ongoing revisions of 5-14 in the ASG;
- Primary staff meetings with secondary Heads of Departments
- A liaison project with a science teacher visiting to take lessons in the primary class
- Topics covered in the primary being taken account of in the secondary;
- Cross sector working groups in some subjects, e.g. ICT, health, technology;and
- Limited requests for work to be covered in the primary, e.g. certain vocabulary in modern languages.
The primary school staff had not had to alter their curriculum to any degree beyond the scale of the normal fine tuning activities already established by the ASG, and as a consequence, there was no additional pressure or special training required. The changes made appeared to be completely contained within the secondary curriculum (Section 3.2).
How did the secondary school fit the curriculum into reduced time available?
Our data from the teachers support the information from the SMT (see section 2.4.1) that audit of the existing curriculum prior to the evaluation period identified certain topics that were being duplicated across different subjects during S1 and S2. The data indicate that the main strategy for reducing the timescale of the course had been to cut out material, either that where content or skills had been duplicated across subjects in the past, or which was regarded as redundant, or which was regarded as the most readily dropped from the course. Despite these cuts, the SMT felt reassured that the new S1 curriculum had appropriate coverage of skills and strands, and reinforcement of activities across subjects, e.g. investigating. The changes had also prompted improvements such as streamlining with primary 5-14 and with Standard Grade requirements, and the modernisation of the curriculum. An increase in pace had also been introduced, and there had been some reduction of assessment. Some respondents felt there had been a loss of some enriching educational experiences for the pupils. (Section 3.3.)
Did the pupils have to do more homework?
Because the school were aware that secondary schools had been criticised for not allocating enough homework, the school staff had given the issue of homework some thought and attention. A homework policy was in place in which good practice was set out, and an external reviewer had reassured them their practice was in line with the national recommendations. Our data from the pupils and parents indicated that while, not unexpectedly, there was a wide range of opinions about levels of homework, it was clear that there was a significant minority of pupils who felt, and whose parents felt, for a variety of reasons, that the allocation was sometimes excessive. The school had increased the amount of homework to bring them in line with the national average, and they thought the parents of the cohort pupils would perceive that homework was increased compared to the previous S1 year groups (Section 3.3.2).
What were the key decisions made vis a vis the inclusion of all pupils in the revised S1 curriculum?
The liaison processes which supported the primary pupils' transition to the secondary school comprised visits to the primary school, the cross sector staff meetings and the induction days. It was clear from the information given and the discussions observed that the staff of both sectors expended a lot of time and effort on the exchange of information which would allow for a smoothly managed transition from the environment of the primary school to that of the secondary. A wide range of information was exchanged, and additional induction time had been organised for pupils identified as having special needs. On the basis of these discussions, pupils were assigned to classes, were identified for special support, or were placed on a 'confidentials' list which teachers could use as appropriate when difficulties arose. Academic information was communicated by reference to the 5-14 level of the child's work and PIPS scores. (Section 3.4.1a, 3.4.1b, 3.5.2)
How was support given to slower or less mature learners?
A number of strategies were used to cater for the wide range of attainment levels present in the S1 cohort. Differentiated materials were planned, but had not been observed in use during our classroom observations. In some subjects there was 'broad-banding', but the spread of attainment could still be quite large within any one class. Differentiation by outcome, where all pupils are given the same teaching or learning experiences, with pupils attaining what level they are able to achieve, was the norm. This was supplemented by teacher support whenever possible, with additional support for those allocated specific learning support input, or regular auxiliary assistance. (Section 3.4.2)
Reviewing the Changes to the S1 Course
The Teachers' Perspectives
The majority of staff who were interviewed and who responded to the questionnaire were positive about the way in which the first year of the new S1 course had gone. They considered that the course was an improvement on the previous course, that the pupils coped well and worked enthusiastically, and that overall the pace of work was right for most of the pupils. Their main concerns were associated with the loss from the course of specific content or learning experiences. Many indicated that further cuts might be necessary. (Section 3.5.1)
The Pupils' Perspectives
As a consequence of an extensive programme of induction, the pupils had felt well informed about the changed S1 course which they were to be experiencing. Few regarded any subjects as 'very hard'; the subjects they found most difficult French, German, science and mathematics were similar to those indicated as difficult by pupils in the year above (S2). Those subjects indicated to be the most interesting were those in which there was an element of 'hands – on' activity – PE, art and design, technical studies, music and science. The subjects in which they indicated they worked best related to the subjects they enjoyed most. The negative experiences reported related mainly to feeling that they were being rushed, and feeling they needed more support than the teacher had time to give them to assist with their learning. (Section 3.5.2)
The Parents' Perspectives
The majority of the parents considered that they had been well informed about what their child would be doing in S1/2 and overall felt happy with their child's experiences in S1. The parents expressed a diversity of views on the pace of the curriculum, but with respect to the positive responses, parents of high attaining pupils were generally positive, as were parents who perceived that their child received adequate support. The most positive effect reported with respect to the pupils was the perception of motivation and stimulation, and being able to drop disliked subjects.
They indicated concerns about the degree to which their children were familiar enough with some subjects to choose at the end of S1; that work sometimes was rushed and not necessarily revised and understood; that there was potentially too much pressure on the youngsters. (Section 3.5.3)
Section 4-Monitoring Change in Motivation and Attainment
Have the new arrangements for S1 and S2 increased challenge and motivation for pupils?
The information from the teachers and parents suggest that the revised S1 course and Standard Grade in S2 provided the pupils with increased challenge and resulted in the majority of the pupils being better motivated and applied in their work. (Section 4.2)
How is progress monitored in the different subjects?
There were conflicting views on the evidence so far available on the effects on attainment so teachers were reluctant to make judgments as to whether the revised S1 course had had a positive effect until they had received the end of year S2 exams and Standard Grade results in S3, although some teachers cited evidence of pupils having improved knowledge and skills in S2 (Section 4.3.2). Differences in the pupils, course content and in assessment were reasons given for not being able to do direct comparisons with data from tests in previous years (Section 4.3.1 a). Teachers seemed reassured that the high attainers were benefiting, but had concerns about the progress of low attaining pupils (Section 4.3.1b). Some parents commented favourably on their child's progress in S1 and S2 (Section 4.3.3).
How are the new courses being monitored?
The data sources which were available to us in monitoring the effectiveness of the new S1 courses, or considering how they were being monitored by the staff are mainly qualitative. Both researchers and school staff agreed that although pupils' general progress was monitored by ongoing test results in many subjects, at this stage it is impossible to generate quantitative data which can afford any meaningful comparisons with the previous courses and their outcomes. One of the difficulties identified by the staff was the naturally occurring fluctuations which they experienced from year group to year group in attainment levels and other characteristics which might affect the outcomes in year 1. For a variety of reasons, the National Tests or the use of 5-14 curriculum levels were not regarded as a useful resource in monitoring attainment, added value or general trends (Section 4.4.1).
Some concerns were expressed that while the advancement of Standard Grade into S2 might deal with the problems of the old S1/2 courses, sitting Standard Grade one year earlier might have an adverse affect on grade outcomes. The Assessment Manager systems were not operational in the schools in this Authority at the time of our interviews, although within some departments pupil records were beginning to be centralised (Section 4.4.1).
Departmental reports to SMT and departmental meetings were also vehicles for monitoring. Pupils were increasingly being involved in forms of evaluations which had informed changes in courses. In addition to the qualitative data reported, quantitative data collected by the school for monitoring purposes in the form of 'behaviour plans' and 'timeouts' are expected in the future to provide evidence of increased motivation. These have been collected by the school for a number of years, but are now being collected more systematically (Section 4.4.1).
The MidYIS scores of the pupils were being collated as a baseline for future monitoring. However the MidYIS tests are an indicator of ability, not a measure of attainment. (Section 4.4.2)
How will the School Measure Pupil/student motivation and the level of Challenge in the Learning Experience? What are the baseline measures for these?
It was reported by the SMT members early in the 2003 session that quantitative evidence of this was likely to be seen as a reduction in the number of 'behaviour plans' and 'time outs'. Although the quantitative data on these incidents does not support the reports from teachers that motivation has improved, the methods of recording and the circumstances of allocation have changed over the last year. The data for these records is now more systematically recorded and should provide an indicator of behaviour and motivation patterns for the future (Section 4.5.1).
What have been the Effects on Attainment and More General Achievement Measures?
The school do not regard the National test measures as a secure quantitative measure of attainment. They have introduced MidYIS tests for pupils which are seen as an indicator of ability (Section 4.5.2).
Have there been changes in pupil subject choices?
The data indicate there were large variations in the numbers of pupils choosing some subjects at Standard Grade. The SMT indicated that these fluctuations were within the normal variations seen from year to year.
At this stage it is suggested that no firm conclusions can be drawn from the quantitative data presented. It is likely that the pupils' Standard Grade results at the end of S3 will provide the first comparative quantitative indicators of pupil attainment and achievement.
Section 5-Choosing Subjects for Standard Grade
The school set in place a series of activities and events to assist pupils and parents to choose subjects for Standard Grade: booklets for pupils and parents; the guidance teachers discussed possible options with classes and individuals. Additionally, two parents' evenings were arranged when pupils and parents could discuss progress in subjects, and another to discuss subject choice with the guidance teacher (Section 5.2).
A strategy employed by the school to deal with potential concerns with subject choices made at the end of S1 was to plan to build flexibility into the system in later years, and to encourage pupils to make enjoyment of the subjects, rather than career choice, the main reason for subject choice at this stage (Section 5.3.1).
While the new arrangements were generally welcomed by the pupils, their responses in interview indicated that the changes were seen as having as many minuses as plusses. The most frequently mentioned benefit was being able to drop subjects which were disliked (Section 5.3.2a). Pupils made choices on the basis of enjoyment (the most frequently indicated); career choice; and the limitations of the column options (Section 5.3.2b).
Just over half of the parents were happy with the information provided and the meetings arranged by the school to assist the pupils make their Standard Grade choices. Many felt the information for pupils on the choices for Standard Grade could perhaps be better targeted towards their age level and concerns (Section 5.3.3a).
Some parents expressed positive views about the new timing. With respect to concerns about the timing of the choice point, parents' reservations centred on two issues: the earliness of the timing with respect to the pupils' knowledge about the subjects; and the associated level of maturity of the pupils, the majority feeling their children were too immature to be choosing at this stage (Section 5.3.3b).
Section 6-The Courses in S2
To what extent are all pupils embarking on Standard Grade from the start of S2? What about pupils with special educational needs? Are any selection criteria used?
What contingencies does the school have in place for pupils in S2/S3 who find the pace of dealing with Standard Grade too much one year early?
While the majority of pupils were taking Standard Grade courses, some pupils were taking Intermediate courses for certain subjects and for those who required support for learning, the school had provided alternative courses, for example, Access courses. The pupils who took these courses were identified by the guidance and support for learning staff (Section 6.2.1).
How well were the new arrangements for Standard Grade operating?
In tackling the Standard Grade materials earlier were there maturity problems and if so, how were they overcome?
The Teachers' Perspectives
The majority of the teachers felt that most pupils were well prepared in key areas for starting Standard Grade courses in S2; that overall they were coping well in their Standard Grade and other courses and that the pace of work was about right for most of the pupils. The staff also indicated a number of positive outcomes for pupils starting Standard Grade in S2 in the form of their heightened motivation, positive attitude, enthusiasm, sense of purpose and a positive response to raised expectations of the pupils in S2 (Section 6.2.2a).
Where staff expressed concerns about starting Standard Grade courses in S2, they focussed primarily on issues relating to the less able pupils and the curriculum. These included reduced coverage prior to Standard Grade and having to choose subjects after limited exposure to them. As a result it was felt that some of the less able pupils were not coping so well as others (Section 6.2.2b). The possible effects of a lack of pupil maturity was mentioned in only one subject area. The SMT indicated that none of these concerns had been raised with them and that they had observed some classes where pupils expressed a high level of maturity for their age (Section 6.2.2c).
In their final comments the majority of all sectors of the staff indicated they were positive about the project and that any concerns were outweighed by the benefits to pupils undertaking Standard Grade a year earlier (Section 6.2.2d).
The Parents' Perspectives
Forty six percent of the parents responded to the questionnaire. The majority of parents of the pupils felt happy with their child's overall experience of beginning Standard Grade in S2. 74% of the parents thought their child was coping well in S2 in most of his/her subjects; 64% were happy with the overall progress their child was making in S2; and 45% thought their child received enough support for his/her learning in the classes. A positive aspect of beginning Standard Grade in S2 indicated by 43% of parents was that it enabled their child to drop subjects s/he did not enjoy or was not good at in S1. The parents expressed a diversity of views depending on the particular circumstances and experiences of their child. The most positive effect reported was the challenge and motivation of the course and resulting progress for their child in S2 (Section 6.3a).
They indicated concerns about the lack of time to study different subjects, or to cover the curriculum; pupil anxiety about performance through taking Standard Grade at the end of S3; about their children being the first to experience the new system; and the prematurity of deciding whether it had been a success (Section 6.3b). Some parents expressed concern about the possible effect of maturity at the time of the exams (Section 6.3c).
The report can be downloaded in PDF format by clicking on the link below:
Keith Grammar Curriculum Flexibility Project - Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Full Report