4Matrix

4Matrix OPTIONS

School Variation

FAQ

Schools
Schools that are doing well are likely to be making confident, professional use of the data available to them. They will have developed reporting their performance far beyond presenting a list of grades to governors, parents and pupils. They will be taking an action-research approach to school improvement involving all teachers. They will know themselves well to the point where they would not be surprised by the findings of an inspection report. They will not just rely on official data to judge them but will have their own evidence of school effectiveness. They will believe that data is there for them to use, rather than to be judged by. They will be able to link what the data tells them to their work on developing teaching and learning.

Headteachers
Successful headteachers will have a sound understanding of what the data tells them about the school's performance. They will downplay the school's league table position in favour of showing what the school does for all learners. They will make the ironing out of inequalities in provision their top priority, and be able to demonstrate that Every Child Matters by being able to prove that provision is good for every learner. In explaining the schools' performance they will refer to measures rather then descriptions of the school's systems. They will work to supplement national contextual comparisons of the work of their school with local contextual interpretations of the performance of each group of learner. They will push the evidence base downwards for teachers and subject leaders to research, analyse and report on. They will be able to present inspectors with an independent, school-owned analysis of the school's performance.

Middle Leaders
Effective middle leaders will undertake research into where pupils over or underperform. They will make significant use of data for tracking performance, diagnosing improvements and analysing results. They will understand the issues connected with interpreting data sensibly. They will review with their colleagues their work as a subject area and its impact using a range of data about the performance of individuals and groups. They will ensure that professional support is targeted with the purpose of increasing pupil achievement and reducing negative variation. They will link their priorities for development to issues revealed by their interpretation of their data, and will not leave problems unnoticed behind summative grade lists. They will focus their subject plans on tackling underachievement, whilst understanding and sharing the reasons why some pupils really blossom in particular circumstances.

What our work with schools tells us
Our work suggests that the use of data for evaluating the work of schools is relatively underdeveloped in a majority of schools at this point in time, and is still evolving at national level. From league tables to target setting, the parameters used to judge school performance can sometimes have the effect of skewing the work of schools away from their prime function - to provide a broad and balanced education for all learners. League tables are an example. National initiatives to raise standards can be prone to experimentation, and often ignore what educationalists know from their experience.

Where data is provided it is often over-complex and pitched at too low a level.
Tools for handling data often expect teachers to be statisticians, rather than seek to translate graphs and numbers into the language of school improvement.
And, in the words of one headteacher in our project: "Having lots of data is not what self-evaluation is about. What counts is having the right tools to make top-level judgements on that data."
In using data to judge schools it is thankfully now recognised that raw scores tell you little about how good a school really is, but in comparing schools there is still not a true level playing field between schools with differing profiles of ability.

The use of contextual value added (CVA) data is a helpful way to make comparisons between schools fairer, but the high correlation between CVA scores and inspection judgments of leadership quality (as reported in the TES) suggests that there may be too much reliance on this one source of evidence. Whereas CVA 'adjusts' value added scores based on national trends, unadjusted data should be the starting point for school-level research into the local contextual circumstances of learners.

The basis for judging school leadership - even with CVA adjustment - is based on the notion of 'high standards' (i.e. no of 5 A-C grades) - whereas our work with over 140 schools tells us that a better basis would be evidence that 'Every Child Matters' i.e. high achievement and consistency of provision, i.e. low variation.

The thrust to convince all schools that they can take the lead in the use of data, rather than see it as something used to judge them, has yet to occur; whilst the most successful schools are already making innovative use of their data and are developing the confidence to take their work in this area further forward.

These findings have influenced our work, and our approach to developing easy-to-use tools for schools to find out more about themselves through the use of the data available to them.

The 'Data Confident School Toolkit' has been developed as a result of this work.
Click here to see how you school compares to the best practice that we have seen.

4Matrix is an independently-managed and funded school effectiveness development, designed to provide simple-to-use, low-cost tools to support action-research approaches to school improvement.

Home Features What users say Demo Contact