PAT: Evaluation, hypotheses and the ECM/Inclusion Agenda

1. PAT: Evaluation,hypotheses and theECM/Inclusion Agenda

2. New for January 2006.. • New Guidance & Training materials on analysis/interpretation of data using regular features of PAT. (How to use Assessment & PLASC data with other ‘Attributes’ to generate questions & hypotheses about inclusive practice and ‘every child’… See also London SEN Regional Partnership Data Profile Project Report) • Low attainers’ reporting & VA functions in PAT (Using ‘below test-level’ TA data collected nationally and/or entered locally) • P Scales reporting & VA functions in PAT (Using P Scales data collected nationally and/or entered locally) developed but ‘switched off ‘– VA line from CEM* on website only

3. New “in 2006” • RAISEonline - Reporting and Analysis for Improvement through School Self-Evaluation • A web-based ‘merger’ between the updated PAT & the new OFSTED PANDA • Accessible 24/7 to anyone who has a password… and internet connection • Intended to provide a common data-set for OFSTED; DfES; Schools; SIPs & LAs to use – and develop a common approach to analysis!

4. New PAT “Inclusion/ECM”Guidance & Training Materials • Tutorial & guidance materials on the DfES Standards Site (PAT section)… • Training (Powerpoint) materials also downloadable from PAT website Includes guidance on Analysis & Interpretation (agreed with OFSTED; National Strategies; NRWS; SENDD; PPT; QCA) for use by: Schools; SIPs; Support Services; EPs; Parent/carers & advocates; Partners in local Children’s Services/Trusts

5. New Inclusion/ECM Guidance: ‘Old-style’ VA or CVA? • Contextualised Value-Added (CVA) function now available in PAT & RAISEonline • However, CVA uses S, P & A for basis of comparison – despite growing consensus that these categories are not valid for this purpose • New Guidance therefore focuses upon Achievement & Attainment Table VA – using only evidence-based comparisons to generate questions & hypotheses • New Guidance treats S, P & A as “Interventions” not “Learner Characteristics” (See also London SEN Regional Partnership “Data Profiling Project” for more detail)

6. Then we can use these columns to keep a record of who has had access to what provision Custom Attributes allows us to add columns to the spreadsheet…. “Attributes” function directly links learners to ‘interventions’ as well as learner ‘characteristics’..

7. We can then look at provision (map?) for a particular group – e.g. all pupils with a statement of SEN…

8. Dot = Individual pupil. Blob = Group of pupils who have made the same progress from the same starting point.. What factors in the school/setting’s provision led to this pupil making such rapid progress? We can inquire further… Qu: Why has this pupil made so little progress? ..and begin to explore the factors that led to fast or slow progress.

9. 1. ‘Hover’ your pointer over this dot and… ………….this information box pops up on the screen to tell you more about the attainment profile for the individual pupil - or group of pupils if one of the larger blobs was selected. Drilling down’ for questions and hypotheses…

10. We can then look at the ‘map’ for an individual… Question: What do you think has “worked” to accelerate Phoenix’s progress so dramatically? In order to explore this a bit further, we may want to look at the relative performance of different groups of which Phoenix is a member … and at the impact elsewhere from interventions used with her.

11. School Median Line …while pupils attaining in the medium range have made progress in line with the national median… School VA line suggests that typically, low attaining pupils in the school have done better than the national median…. …and high attaining pupils have typically done less well than the national median – and, in terms of progress, are amongst the lowest 25 percent. Looking at the school’s VA line.. Question: Is there any evidence to suggest that the school’s Gifted & Talented programme (which Phoenix was involved in) is working well to accelerate progress? Do we think this has been a key factor in her accelerated progress?

12. Girls within this school, in the midddle & high range for attainment, have done less well than national median… Phoenix’s accelerated progress is not typical of girls in the school, (or even low attaining girls) any more than it is of all pupils… Looking at the performance of girls What is it in Phoenix’s case that helped her “buck the trend”? Is it a school-based factor or some change in her personal/social circumstances?

13. We can look at specific interventions..e.g. learning mentor Does the school have evidence to suggest that this intervention may be contributing to accelerated progress by individuals within this setting? What other interventions might you want to look at in relation to Phoenix? What picture might we see if we looked at the progress made by all those who worked with a speech & language therapist? Or were part of an “anger management” group?

14. We can look at categories of need… Which of these pupils had learning mentors as part of their BESD provision…? We can use the software to find out.

15. This is an area where Phoenix has outperformed the rest of her year group – despite her low starting point at the beginning of the keystage…. WHY? HOW? Question: What areas would you select for her to work on next? Analysing question-level data…

16. Has Phoenix’s experience highlighted an area of development for the school? Comparing with school & national data

17. New functions within PAT… • Including low attaining pupils in regular analysis and reporting processes • School Improvement reports show 3 year patterns & comparative Attainment, VA & CVA for low attainers & those at A; P & S • Beginning to include those at P Scales levels too.. (Work done, but functionality ‘switched off’ due to low returns nationally..)*

18. Value-added graphs for low attainers..

19. School-level reports: Low attainers..

20. Low attainers in target-setting tool..

21. Slow progress “alerts”…

22. Entering P Scales data..(Switched off)

23. Pupil-level reports: P Scales levels.. (Switched Off)

24. Points Score Equivalence • Growing consensus among HMI; SEN Advisers; SENDD; NRWS; A & AT Tables team; etc. that we can use the Yorkshire & Humberside SEN Regional PartnershipEquivalence Table as a “starting point” nationally.. • Copies available from YH SENRP website* • Being distributed by DfES Data teams

25. Just the beginning… • RAISEonline - Web-based & universal from 2006 • VA for P Scales levels becomes possible when current cohort reach end of keystage: Need to encourage return of P Scales data!! Statutory from 2007? • Need for local/regional moderation of Teacher Assessment (including P Scales) in order to make evaluation processes more robust • Need to develop school/cluster MIS processes to enable similar ongoing analysis • Need to develop analysis & interpretation capability at local/regional/national levels • Links to provision maps & provision development via wider evaluation of other pupil-level outcomes within ECM framework – London SEN Regional Partnership Provision Management Guidance in preparation!

26. For more information: • PATenquiries@dfes.gsi.gov.uk • DfES Pupil Performance Team - 020 7925 5119 • your local National Strategy Consultancy team or Local Authority Research & Statistics team • the PAT website:www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/performance/pat/ • SEN Regional Partnership websites:www.londonsen.org.ukwww.yhsenrp.org.ukwww.emsenrp.org.uk • QCA P Scales materials:www.qca.org.uk • Primary National Strategy website:http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/