Moving beyond the floor target – Middlefield Primary School, Liverpool

Date of issue: Jan. 2008

Theme: Schools Causing Concern (SCC)

School context and profile

Middlefield PS is a larger than average primary school situated in the southern outskirts of Liverpool. The school’s location is recognised by the local authority (LA) as one of acute social need. Statistics show it to be an area of multiple deprivation with challenging social and economic circumstances.
A very high proportion of pupils have learning difficulties and/or disabilities. The school is also resourced to provide 18 places for pupils from across the LA, who have social, emotional and behavioural difficulties.
The number of pupils who start or leave the school at random points throughout the year is very high.
The school was opened in 2002 due to the amalgamation of two schools, and was invited to join the Intensifying Support Programme (ISP) for a second time in September 2005.
The headteacher, who had been the deputy headteacher of the school since its creation, took up her post in September 2006.
The New Relationship with Schools and the introduction of School Improvement Partners (SIP), coupled with the appointment of the new headteacher, has resulted in a productive working partnership which is effective in supporting and challenging the school to bring about improvement in standards using the ISP.
The current SIP has worked with the school since October 2006 and the school was an LA project school 2006-2007.

The school’s recent Ofsted report stated that the school needed to:

raise standards and achievement in English, mathematics and science throughout the school;
improve the consistency of the quality of teaching and learning, including in the Foundation Stage (FS);
improve levels of attendance.

End of Key Stage 2 Results

	English		Mathematics
	Level 4	Level 5	Level 4	Level 5
2005	54%	2%	42%	12%
2006	51%	6%	58%	16%
2007	79%	40%	81%	42%

Go to top

Barriers to improvement

At the beginning of the programme the end of FS Profile showed that children’s development was significantly below national and local averages in all areas.
Standards at Key Stage 1 in all areas had declined since 2002 and were significantly below national and local averages in all areas. The school’s contextual value added score in 2005 was 98.2.
The attendance was well below national average.
The focus for the first year Raising Attainment Plan (RAP) was mainly mathematics, based on end of Key Stage 2 numerical results and the perception of the school’s strengths and areas of development as identified in the school development plan.
In addition to all of the above, a key barrier to improvement was the over-emphasis in the school on improving pastoral care often at the expense of children’s learning and raising attainment.

Go to top

The school-based issues – what needed to change?

The style of leadership.
Standards of attainment.
Poor attendance.
Inadequate use of data, and target setting done for its own sake.
Low expectations of staff, parents and pupils.
An over-emphasis on pastoral care which tended to deflect focus away from the curriculum.
No real sense of accountability.
Inconsistency in the quality of teaching; classroom organisation; and children’s learning.

What was done?

The following describes the actions taken following the appointment of a new headteacher , which corresponds to Stage 2 described later in the section on the authority.

Tracking systems were improved and became working documents, focused on meeting children’s learning needs.
Monitoring systems were reorganised and the focus changed to include not only lesson observations but progress tests; target setting; and termly headteacher/staff interviews to an agreed format with requirements in terms of documentation.
The headteacher visits every class at least twice per day.
A new management structure introduced based on the principle of distributed leadership. No deputy headteacher appointed but staff given responsibilities and held accountable.
A new performance management system has been introduced to all staff.
Moderation of teachers’ assessments introduced to agree on standards.
‘Learning journals’ were introduced to help improve the quality of teaching: teachers evaluate the learning which has taken place on a weekly basis and adjust programmes accordingly; journals are monitored by the headteacher weekly.
Flexible use made of individual staff strengths and skills, such as literacy, numeracy, science and creativity specialists.
Subject managers given responsibility and encouraged to take the initiative and determine priorities to move their subject forward.
Setting introduced from Year 1; this is a very fluid process using teacher assessment and ‘Rising Stars achievement programme’ to ensure consistency of assessment across the school. Children assessed every half term and groups adjusted accordingly.
Class sizes were kept small, mostly at 20 to 22.
Curriculum organisation was reviewed and adjusted. Literacy, numeracy and science were taught in the mornings and a wide variety of clubs and activities in the afternoon organised to meet the needs in other areas of the curriculum. Initially begun in Year 5 and Year 6, it has since been rolled out across the middle school.
Interventions carried out according to need, for example, Further Literacy Support programme was undertaken with the whole Year 6 class with six children identified as the target group. As a result, the six targeted children made a minimum of two sub levels progress and the remainder of the class made a minimum of one sub level.
Learning support officers given their own classes, for example, they have their own nurture groups, and are involved in all continuing professional development (CPD).
A learning support officer was released to support the learning mentor with attendance and discussions with parents. Discussions with and involvement of parents increased.
Action was taken on attendance: first day of absence contact made; daily check on lateness; and when necessary the courts involved.
Termly reporting to governors on progress.
A National Curriculum tests strategy meeting held every half term.
A school council introduced to involve children in school improvement.
CPD focused entirely on school needs and the RAP.

Monitoring and evaluation

Use of National Curriculum tests percentages and RAISE online data.
Analysis of class profiles.
Analysis of attendance.
Ongoing assessment.
Interviews with children.
Discussions with parents.
Success criteria in the RAP.

What has been the overall impact?

A headteacher focus on leadership for learning.
Considerable improvement in children’s learning; children have higher expectations of themselves; have increased self-esteem; and now focus on the tasks in hand.
Much improved attainment: Key Stage 2 National Curriculum tests were the best on record and RAISE online data puts the school in the first percentile for Key Stage 2.
Attendance has risen by 2%.
A much more positive ethos in the school, and overall, a changed culture; relationships and behaviour much improved. Overall, the school is a much happier place in which to work and learn.
A greater consistency in the quality of teaching; staff more accountable; more reflective; have a greater sense of worth; and feel valued by senior managers.
Higher staff expectations.
A much greater focus on meeting children’s needs, with the school now being focused on children’s learning.
More effective tracking of pupils’ progress, and monitoring of classroom practice.
School governors now more effective in holding staff accountable.
Children now have a voice in improving the school.
Improved breakfast clubs which are now better organised, with children being involved in adultled activities (breakfast costs 50p per family).

‘ISP has brought the human face of improvement to our school. They have enabled us to move forward offering differentiated support entirely tailored to our circumstances and needs. They have always treated the staff with respect and professionalism and instilled them with confidence. We have been fortunate to have taken part in ISP, so much part of Middlefield now that we no longer know where Middlefield starts and ISP ends.’

Go to top

Local authority support and challenge

In 2005, the school was persuaded to join the ISP. From that point onwards progress can be described in two stages; stages determined by decisions taken by the headteacher at the time.

Stage 1:

During discussions with the authority the school decides that its main focus was to be on improving attainment in mathematics.
Once staff became confident in working with the authority, further analysis of attainment led staff to include literacy as a priority in addition to the examination of gender differences in attainment.
The authority encouraged staff to examine end of Year 6 assessments, compare results in English and mathematics and analyse reasons for any difference.
The assessment coordinator analysed all data to identify individual children’s progress in English and mathematics, as well as progress in each year group. Subject consultants modelled lessons and delivered INSET to all staff, for example, the literacy consultant worked closely with Key Stage 1 and delivered an intensive reading programme. The mathematics consultant offered support in Year 6 to model lessons and boost pupils’ attainment.
The authority focused on learning and teaching through the use of curricular targets.
All staff, including teaching assistants, were trained in intervention programmes.
The RAP was discussed termly with the headteacher, ISP consultant and the two subject coordinators.
This was an evolving process and it took about a year to reach the above stages with the headteacher and staff.

Stage 2:

In September 2006 a new headteacher took up post and, from that point, actions were much more focused and there was much improved working with the authority to affect improvements.
SIP was introduced in October 2006 with the new headteacher.
The RAP was rewritten in September 2006, and had a clearer focus on raising attainment. The headteacher had a new vision for the school, and identified specific actions which had to be taken to raise attainment in mathematics.
In January 2007 an Ofsted inspection took place which recognised the growing culture change in the school, and improvements in attainment.
Pupil progress meetings were held half termly which caused staff to reflect on their practice. Staff kept ‘Learning journals’ as part of the reflective process, and began looking at short term assessments.
Increasing work was done at the FS, increasing the staff focus on children’s learning.

What was done?

In addition to what was described above, once the new headteacher was in post, key interventions were made by the authority’s SIP and the ISP consultant, supported by subject consultants.

In October 2006, an authority SIP made her first school improvement plan visit. This involved very rigorous questioning and was initially traumatic for the headteacher. The main focus of the discussion was pupil progress and performance management. In addition to questioning and challenge, considerable practical advice was given. In effect, the authority had increased the challenge on the school at a time when the new headteacher was willing and receptive to make improvements. This, and subsequent meetings, gave a clear steer to the school.
The ISP consultant continued to discuss and build upon the new start made. Criteria for class profiles were defined and included the grouping of children where intervention was required; target setting and predicting. Senior Management Team (SMT) members were trained in data analysis and they subsequently appreciated the reality of attainment and children’s progress. Comparison of data from similar schools helped focus discussions. Literacy and numeracy consultants focused on under-performing pupils. The authority was involved in ongoing discussions with the SMT over a period of time, helping focus SMT members’ attention on monitoring and improving learning and teaching, including classroom management.
All schools are in authority learning networks: a group of self-selecting schools with a learning coordinator. The schools share good practice, and are supported by the learning network coordinator, for example, in providing CPD.

Monitoring and evaluation

An authority review group was established which included all key stakeholders, including the governing body. It was chaired by the authority’s intervention manager, and held the school accountable for pupils’ progress.
Steps were taken to measure progress in:

Key stage outcomes.
The progress of target groups.
Sub levels.
The impact of intervention strategies.
The RAP using the defined success criteria.
The number of children reaching age-related expectations.

What has been the overall impact?

Attendance has risen by 2%.
Attainment has risen dramatically (see earlier statistics). The school is now ranked in the top 1% of similar schools at Key Stage 2; previously it was in the bottom 3%.
Leadership for learning has improved. The headteacher has been decisive, and when necessary has taken difficult decisions, for example, with regard to the quality of some of the teaching.
The quality of teaching has improved, and there is a greater focus now on meeting the needs of pupils. Teachers have reflected on the learning in their classrooms, and adapted their teaching accordingly. The school uses the different skills of staff in a flexible manner. Overall, there has been a growth in the professionalism of staff.
Children are more engaged in their learning, and their self-esteem has risen. There is more active learning.
Staff have higher expectations of pupils. Outcomes of all staff meetings are recorded with actions to be taken with timescales.
Much more engagement in CPD, which is wholly focused on school improvements.
The ethos of the school has improved, and there is a greater focus on celebrating pupils’ achievements.
Parents are now more involved; more are attending assemblies and attending open days.

‘There has been an evolutionary change in the culture of the school.’

‘The school is now a professional learning community.’

‘When a school engages with the authority it is more effective in making improvements.’

‘A crucial decision taken by the new headteacher and governors has been to embrace the Intensifying Support Programme (ISP) provided through the LA and also to link with other schools in a local network, to support the drive to raise standards. This has brought about a cultural change in the school and set it on its current course by enabling staff and governors to set clear goals, which are moving the school forward.’ (Ofsted January 2007)

Go to top

5. Sustainability – what next?

What mechanisms are there in place to ensure improvements are sustained?

What will the school do?

The school will:

increase the focus on Key Stage 1;
continue with ISP;
continue with developments in the learning network;
continue on the current path of improvement.

What will the LA do?

The school will be involved in ISP for another year followed by a light touch programme of support from ISP.
Will continue to offer support through additional literacy and numeracy consultant support.
The SIP will be linked with the school for the next three years.
Analysis will be done to include more children in intervention strategies.
Learning networks will focus on management training.
Progress plans will be developed.
An exit strategy will be developed whereby the school will continue to receive high quality CPD through the ISP programme and the light touch ISP support and subject consultant support noted above.