Table Of ContentSupporting Improving Primary Schools
Supporting Improving Primary Schools reveals how a group of self-
managing and improving schools went about enhancing their pupils’
achievements. It is based on the findings of the Essex Primary School
Improvement Research and Development Programme, which aimed to
enable schools to develop strategies for improving the quality of teaching
and learning, increase the LEA’s capacity to support schools and increase
knowledge and understanding of the processes and outcomes of school
improvement.
The book argues that an evidence-based approach to school improvement
is essential. Key ingredients for school improvement include self
evaluation, supplemented by inspection; action planning and target setting;
examining and monitoring pupils’ achievements, progress and provision;
and the building and sustenance of a sharing and analysing teacher culture.
The editors conclude that improving primary schools need to strive to
develop a clear focus for their improvement efforts. It is necessary to audit,
monitor and evaluate progress towards stated goals; track the processes of
improvement inside the school; emphasise learning and teaching; and
adopt the formal strategy of school improvement.
Geoff Southworth is Professor of Education at the University of Reading
School of Education. He has been a primary school teacher, deputy and
headteacher. His interests include primary school leadership and
improvement, and he has published widely in these areas. He is committed
to school-based and school-focused research and development.
Paul Lincoln is Director of Learning Services for Essex County Council.
He taught for 19 years before joining the local education authority as an
inspector. He was chair of the Essex Primary School Improvement
Programme Steering Group and was closely involved with the programme
throughout.
Supporting Improving
Primary Schools
The Role of Heads and LEAs in
Raising Standards
Edited by
Geoff Southworth and Paul Lincoln
First published 1999 by Falmer Press
11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Garland Inc., 19 Union Square West, New York, NY 10003
Falmer Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
© 2000 Edited by Geoff Southworth and Paul Lincoln
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data are available
ISBN 0-203-98441-2 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-750-71014-4 hbk
ISBN 0-750-71015-2 pbk
Contents
List of Figures and Tables vi
Acknowledgments vii
Introduction 1
Geoff Southworth and Paul Lincoln
Part 1: Overview and Main Findings 7
Chapter 1 Overview of the EPSI Programme 8
Paul Lincoln and Geoff Southworth
Chapter 2 Main Findings 22
Pete Dudley, Tina Loose and Geoff Southworth
Part 2: School Insights 63
Chapter 3 Headship, Leadership and School Improvement 64
Geoff Southworth
Chapter 4 Primary Schools and Pupil ‘Data’ 81
Pete Dudley
Chapter 5 Taking Pupil Perspectives Seriously: The Central 100
Place of Pupil Voice in Primary School
Improvement
Michael Fielding, Alan Fuller and Tina Loose
Part 3: LEA Insights 115
Chapter 6 The LEA and School Improvement 116
Sue Kerfoot and Gary Nethercott
Chapter 7 Process Consultancy: The Role of LEA 130
Consultants in Supporting School Improvement
Alan Fuller and Sue Fisher
Part 4: Wider Issues and Conclusions 143
v
Chapter 8 Evaluating School Improvement 144
Tina Loose and Judy Sebba
Chapter 9 Improvement Policies and LEA Strategies in Light 162
of the EPSI Programme Findings
Paul Lincoln
Chapter 10 Key Points and Conclusions 174
Geoff Southworth and Paul Lincoln
Appendices 1. Programme Aims, Targets and Success Criteria 197
2. Common Measures Agreed Across All EPSI 201
Programme Schools
3. Pupil Attitude Survey 203
4. EPSI Workshop Programmes 205
5. The IQEA Six School Conditions 207
Notes on contributors 210
References 212
Index 217
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
2.1 Increases in gains in EPSI schools, as a percentage of gain in all 24
Essex schools 1995–8
2.2 Gains in percentage of pupils at or above level 4 in KS2 English 26
tests for 11-year-olds
2.3 KS2 English test scores: EPSI v. Essex 27
2.4 EPSI schools KS2 English test results 1995–8 28
2.5 KS2 Mathematics tests: EPSI v. Essex 29
2.6 EPSI schools KS2 Mathematics test results 1995–8 29
2.7 KS2 Science tests: EPSI v. Essex 30
2.8 EPSI schools KS2 Science test results 1995–8 30
2.9 EPSI schools ‘value added’ 1996–7 31
4.1 Sample summary mark sheet 88
4.2 The perceived impact on improvement of the EPSI data sets 93
5.1 A climate conducive to learning 106
5.2 Feedback format 107
9.1 The Essex Quality Framework—the 12 quality dimensions 167
9.2 The Essex Quality Framework—the 12 questions 168
Tables
2.1 KS2 English tests, EPSI pupils and Essex pupils, percentages 27
attaining level 4 and above
2.2 Percentages attaining level 4 and above in KS2 Mathematics tests 28
2.3 KS2 Science tests, total EPSI and Essex pupils attaining level 4 29
and above
2.4 EPSI improvement targets 34
4.1 What EPSI schools identified as ‘data sources’, which were being 86
monitored and analysed as a result of the EPSI focus
4.2 Contrasting patterns of results for three schools when expressed 97
as percentages at level 4 and above, average levels and value
added indicators
4.3 School data—triangulation of evidence of improvement 97
Acknowledgments
The Essex Primary School Improvement Programme was a partnership
venture involving colleagues from schools, the Local Education Authority
and the University of Cambridge School of Education. Consequently,
thanks are due to many groups and individuals who participated in the
programme or assisted those who did.
In particular we would like to thank the staff in all the primary schools
that participated in the programme. Though we cannot name these
schools, we do want to acknowledge them. Their cooperation and
willingness to provide information on their work, efforts and ideas form
the foundations of this programme and we are indebted to them.
Similarly we want to note the efforts of the LEA staff who were
involved. The School Development Advisers, Senior Educational
Psychologists and Special Educational Needs Team Leaders not only
supported the schools, but also gathered a great deal of the data we present
in this book. Their observations and views, which they shared during
programme development days, have helped to inform and shape the
outcomes and conclusions of this research.
There are three individuals whom we also want to thank. Ann Davies of
Essex LEA throughout the programme played a vital role in terms of
supporting the Steering Group, maintaining communication channels
between all the partners and ensuring that all loose ends were tied
together. We also want to thank Ruth Naunton of Essex LEA and
Rosemary Jones of Reading University School of Education whose
secretarial skills ensured that the manuscript of this book was put together
and completed.
Introduction
Geoff Southworth and Paul Lincoln
The Essex Primary School Improvement Research and Development
Programme (EPSI) was a partnership between Essex Local Education
Authority (LEA) and a group of staff who then worked at the University of
Cambridge School of Education (UCSE). The programme aimed to enable
schools to develop strategies for improving the quality of teaching and
learning, to increase the LEA’s capacity to support schools and to increase
knowledge and understanding of the processes and outcomes of school
improvement.
The EPSI programme was a three-year-long initiative, formally
commencing in September 1995 and closing in the summer of 1998.
However, there was a lengthy period of project negotiation and design that
occurred during 1994–5 when it was provisionally agreed who would be
involved and supported, and that we would simultaneously research the
process of primary school improvement.
The programme had two main elements. One was to offer LEA staff a
programme of professional development to enhance their knowledge of
school improvement research and practice, to increase their awareness of
primary schooling and to build multi-disciplinary teams. The latter was an
innovative feature of the programme, since it was decided that support for
school improvement should forge new coalitions of LEA staff. Programme
Teams were introduced, comprising School Development Advisers (SDAs),
Special Needs Support Staff (SNSS) and senior educational psychologists. By
combining these three different groups, it was intended that the teams and
their schools would have a range of expertise available to them and that
this range would assist their professional development.
The second element centred on how staff in the participating primary
schools worked towards improving the quality of teaching and the pupils’
learning and achievements and how they were supported by the
programme teams. One objective of the programme was to work with and
learn from the schools’ experiences in using performance data to improve
school outcomes and processes. Consequently each school was required to
collect and analyse assessment information. In addition to end of key stage
data from Year 6 pupils, schools were invited to use the then newly
2 GEOFF SOUTHWORTH AND PAUL LINCOLN
introduced Year 4 assessments. Key Stage 2 pupils were the focus for the
EPSI programme. This was because there were national and LEA concerns
about this key stage and because the programme was specifically designed
to support primary schools.
The emphasis on primary schools arose from a number of sources. The
LEA in the early 1990s experienced the switch of many secondary schools
(as well as some primary) to grant maintained status. Grant maintained
schools became totally independent of the LEA and were thus self-
governing as well as self-managing. Consequently, the balance of the
number of primary and secondary schools in the LEA tilted even more
strongly in favour of primary schools. Yet the majority of senior staff in the
LEA were from secondary school backgrounds and many of the school
development advisers also only had secondary experience, although they
would now be working in many more primary schools. Such a distribution
of experience is not uncommon in other LEAs. What it reflects is a wider,
structural issue that ensures that at policy-making levels and senior
positions in LEAs there is a predominance of colleagues with secondary
experience over those with primary phase expertise.
We say this not to infer a sectarian outlook, nor to imply that cross-
phase working cannot take place, but to recognize a structural bias in parts
of the educational system and to argue that it needs to be addressed. Since
1997, central government’s reforms have been focused strongly on primary
schools and this emphasis looks set to continue. Therefore, it is important
that staff in LEAs, as well as national policy-makers and their advisers,
remain keenly aware of the implications of their reforms for primary
schools and how they improve and prosper.
Primary schools are not little big schools. They are different
organizational units, often working in different ways and, sometimes,
adopting different emphases and practices from their secondary phase
counterparts. For example, class teaching remains the main structural
arrangement, rather than subject-based teaching. Primary schools do not
enjoy curriculum-led staffing, but must manage on teacher-pupil ratios.
Yet, since the advent of the National Curriculum, primary teachers have
had to teach a subject-based curriculum, which requires them to command
knowledge of nine subject areas and a volume of content that would
challenge the most able of polymaths.
It is also true that primary schools have not been well served by school
improvement studies, which have generally favoured secondary schools,
despite evidence from the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED)
indicating in 1994–5 some concerns about Key Stage 2 that warranted
closer examination. These concerns probably related to the overloaded
content of the National Curriculum and the lack of subject teaching
specialists in primary schools, but whatever the specific reasons for them,
these points also generally supported the case for studying primary schools.
