The case for Art: School Performance Measures from 2016

Posted on Updated on

The case for Art: School Performance Measures from 2016 

by Paul Carney http://www.paulcarneyarts.com

Why this paper?

It is becoming increasingly apparent to National subject bodies that Art and Design at Key Stage 4 is becoming marginalised because of the effect of the government’s education policies. The NSEAD Educator Survey 2014 cited 52 per cent of Heads of Department registering a detrimental impact in the provison for art, craft and design in the curriculum because of the existing EBacc, with large percentages of schools registering a drop in the amount of Key Stage 3 and 4 curriculum time.

The effects of discount coding has had an impact on Key Stage 4 curriculum time of course, but it is puzzling as to why the perceived value of art has dropped in the minds of school leaders when the reverse is true. Where previously Art played a minor role in helping students attain the 5 A*-C threshold, the new attainment measures imply that good Art & Design figures will add significant value to pupils progress targets. Far from diminishing the role of art in the school, there is real evidence to show that Art & Design’s profile should be raised.

The objective of this paper is to show:

  • Art & Design can add significant value added to the headline indicators when compared to all subjects.
  • FFT data shows it’s in the school’s and the pupil’s best interests to enable them to study for 3 subjects in Block 3 that they will score highly in and are motivated to pass, in order to maximise attainment to the new floor standard.
  • Making large positive value added Progress 8 scores could be harder for high attaining students and it will be very easy for them to fail to show attainment 8.
  • Large value added Progress 8 gains can be made by lower attaining students and they can now add significant VA to the floor standard when their attainment counted for little under the previous indicators.

 For a PDF version of this document contact paulcarney700@gmail dot com

The new school measures

There are several factors UK schools will have to consider when planning for the changes to performance measures from 2015/16. The new headline measures for schools will be:

  • The schools average Progress 8 score. Progress 8 is the difference between the KS2 estimate attainment and the KS4 Attainment score divided by ten. Confidence indicators around this score make it statistically sound.
  • The Attainment 8 score (Sum of each pupils GCSE point scores)
  • Number of pupils attaining successful threshold grades in English and Maths.
  • Number of students attaining the threshold Ebacc level.

Floor Standard

The new floor standard for schools will be the Progress 8 measure. Where the figure is below -0.5 or the upper confidence interval below zero, then an inspection can be triggered. The difficulty for schools is that the new progress 8 and attainment 8 targets mean that schools must show progress on personalised targets for each student. No longer can schools with academically bright pupils relax in the knowledge that they will achieve a high percentage of pupils with 5 A*-C’s because the new measure means they will have to show progress on high targets set from SAT scores. The FFT diagram below shows how schools who currently do well at getting 5 A*-C’s will be shown to underperform to the new measures and schools who currently underperform do well.

newfloor

Source; FFT

New GCSE target grades

The current GCSE grades match to the new numbered grades very easily. However, there will be an additional grade 9 added next year and the boundaries will change. The bottom of third a current grade B and the top third of a current grade C will score grade 5. The same proportion of students will achieve a grade 7 or above as achieve a grade A now and will be eligible for grade 9. A current G grade will become a 1 grade. The government state that the same proportions of students will get the higher grades as do now, even though the 5/C pass threshold has been raised.

Block 2 Ebacc subjects

At present, it is not the case that all students must take Humanities and Languages for GCSE because humanities and languages are still not compulsory subjects in KS4. This situation will probably change in the Autumn of 2015 when the Conservative Government are expected to release details of a compulsory Ebacc including these subjects. At present however the requirement is for the results of ANY three Ebacc subjects to reach the pass threshold. As the DfE guidelines state:

’The (Ebacc) qualifications can count in any combination and there is no requirement to take qualifications in each of the ‘pillars’ of the Ebacc.’ Source; DfE Progress 8 Measure in 2016 and 2017, Guide for maintained and secondary schools, academies and free schools, March 2015

At present you can tailor the subjects taken for Ebacc around the ability of the student. For example, high academic students might do well to take up two single science options in their Ebacc block because these score highly at GCSE. The DfE examples clearly state that students might study any combination of Ebacc subjects;

  • biology, chemistry, French; or
  • Spanish, French, German; or
  • history, geography, Spanish.

This current flexibility means your students can pass the Ebacc by adapting it to suit their ability, performance and motivation. Low attaining students might take science, computer science and geography for example. They are still statistically unlikely to attain the Ebacc performance success threshold, but they are more likely to attain positive value added Attainment 8 scores if they are free to study subject they like and do better in.

Compulsory Ebacc?

When or if the Ebacc requirements change to become compulsory for each Ebacc pillar the knock on effect will be; less room for option 3 subjects and increased pressure on showing Value Added progress. The National Ebacc figures will go through the roof and the Government will likely proclaim that their education policies are a success, but in reality the compulsory Ebacc makes less room for Middle/Low attainers to study subjects that they will do well in. The knock on effect of this is that it will be harder for these students to make good VA progress. High attaining academic schools/students might statistically fare better to Ebacc targets because they will almost certainly be studying them anyway, but it is the Progress 8 score that is the floor target not Ebacc. But even the academic students cannot rest easy because the government plans to raise the GCSE pass threshold so all those students on low C’s will now only get D’s which is a drop of one point score in VA.

This implies that meeting individual attainment targets for pupils will be incredibly tough, especially when students must meet those targets in academic subjects. Of course these targets will be personalised to individual ability and KS2 SAT tests are getting tougher too, but the fact remains that surpassing these targets in blocks 1 and 2 is going to be very difficult and that’s where block 3 comes in.

FFT Managing Director Paul Charman said in his 2013 speech; ‘Progress 8 – measuring, understanding and improving performance in a changing world,’ successful Progress 8 attainment depends on getting three things right;

  • the Entry/Curriculum,
  • the Pupil interest/Motivation
  • Subject Value-Added and estimated attainment.

No doubt school leaders are pouring over previous data models to analyse their predicted/likely Value Added scores, but no one can say what the impact of compulsory Ebacc will be on Middle/Low attainers’ exam results until they’ve tried it. But less time to study subjects that are highly motivating to pupils and more time being forced to study subjects they didn’t want to take will make it extremely challenging. This makes it even more imperative to get what little option time is available right. Many subjects are going to be hit hard, specialist teachers in non-Ebacc areas will have to diversify their teaching or suffer, but there are subjects that continually offer high Value Added and high motivation and Art is one of these subjects.

In fact, FFT data is very clear; Art and Design is a VERY high value subject that brings a 1.4 average grade point improvement on actual verses estimated targets. The 28% A*/A achievement (2013 figures) give Art a very powerful leverage in option block 3 as the tables show.

pic

Source: FFT

 

Maximise Block 3 time

Making all students study the Ebacc options is going to be difficult, not least of all because it reduces the amount of time they have to study subjects they are motivated in. No one knows what the requirement will be at this stage, but it’s unlikely to specify a particular amount of study time. There may be scope therefore for lower attaining students (who you know aren’t going to pass the Ebacc) to limit their Ebacc school study time and perhaps offer online support materials for home study. In this way you are honouring the compulsory Ebacc commitment and still giving the students every opportunity to gain the qualification. Whether they take this opportunity is not the point, you’re prioritising and maximising their limited, specialist school study time. It may just be one desperate measure you may consider in the battle for attainment.

Block 3 options

In order to achieve good Progress 8 and Attainment 8 figures, you ideally want every pupil to study subjects in which they will perform better than their KS2 estimated attainment average suggests. The positive and negative areas of the new attainment system will relate to their minimum attainment target. By dividing this target by the number of subjects they are studying, you can create a subject pass threshold table and more easily see which subjects are predicted to score positive or negative value added.

pic2

So if you have a student who needs to score straight grade 7’s/A’s to meet their Attainment 8 target you can compare how each subject performs relative to their attainment target. You would probably know what their attainment 8 targets were in year 7 if the DfE provide them. Although RAISE/FFT data etc. would give you a statistical indication of how the pupil will perform in each subject, accurate teacher assessment and good subject baselines are crucial, especially in skills based subjects like Art, which data cannot define. You want to ensure that pupils will opt for as many subjects in which they outperform their target in as they can. If you know a pupil is unlikely to reach their target grade in a particular subject, you will need to look for subjects where they will make up that loss.

Arts subjects will be statistically favourable for enabling students to meet progress targets because Art and Design outperforms all other subjects (2014 GCSE example table below) at A*-C passes except single sciences (for academic students). In fact, where students have an aptitude for Art, Music and/or Drama, it’s safe to say that significant progress can be achieved by allowing these pupils to study them. Taking account of the fact that vocational/Btec level 2 subjects score 5 points for a pass also means that these subjects could bring good VA for low ability students if successfully passed. Merits are 6 points, Distinctions are 7 so you can clearly assess the value of vocational courses for your VA measure. Lower ability students have the potential to add significant value to the school’s floor standards.

KS2 Estimated Attainment

At present the DfE use the KS2 SAT scores from Maths and English, average them to national data levels to create a fine level score for each subject, then create a single average attainment score for KS4. This will change in two years time to be a measure of Maths and Reading only. The Feb 2015 DfE Progress 8 document shows an example of KS2 fine levels from 2014. It shows how the Attainment targets might work for 2017 when the first KS2 data begins to come through. However, there will be more current performance matrices on RAISE online and schools will be sent updated data directly.

Untitled

Using this table, you can calculate the MINIMUM threshold for attainment at GCSE, and see where every grade above the Minimum Attainment 8 target counts towards positive value added attainment.

It might be a good idea to make threshold tables for all the fine point scores then all you would need to do it to add the pupils’ names each year and hey presto you have individual progress targets.

This table shows how KS2 core fine scores relate to Attainment 8 targets and the GCSE results needed:

Untitled 2

NOTE: This is the sample data only

What this data shows is that progress 8 positives could be more marginal and harder to attain for students whose attainment is high, but the Ebacc and Core threshold targets should be easier to attain. The new grade 9’s should work in favour of these high achieving students. Conversely, progress 8 positives should be easier to attain in students with less academic ability, but the Ebacc and Core threshold targets will be harder. However, previously lower performing schools can now show they are making significant progress for their pupils.

High Ability Students

A bright student might easily have a KS4 target of 70 that is taken from a 5.5 KS2 fine score. They would therefore have a target to attain an equivalent eight subject grade 7’s (with two subjects being doubled) = 10 x 7 = 70. This KS4 attainment actually gives a Progress measure of Zero! (70 -70 = 0) The student would need at least one A star to be deemed to be making successful progress. However, if the student had scored just one KS2 fine point less (5.4) then they would be +0.3!

high

So this student achieves the English & Maths indicator and the Ebacc Indicator but not the Progress 8 floor indicator. Now you have to remember that the entire schools’ progress scores are totalled and averaged, and a confidence indicator is also applied to create a top and bottom confidence range. So it might be that a single score such as this is insignificant. What I’d need to establish for this student is where they are likely to get a grade 8 or 9 because they need at least one to show good progress. So even with high attaining students, the pressure is on.

How would this look with an 8-subject model?

The table shows a nine-subject model, in an eight-subject model the English Language score would be moved to Option block 3 and the pupil would have to score 7’s here also. However, using 2014 GCSE results data I can see that students at this grade are less likely to achieve English Language grade A. For every low 6 (grade B) they need to get an A star to compensate. So unless your own data tells you otherwise, national data indicates that the eight-subject model will underperform. Getting a grade 6 (B) in the core means they have to get TWO A stars elsewhere because core counts double and one score of 5 (C) is disastrous! So it makes statistical sense to provide block 3 subjects as a buffer against such slip-ups for high achievers.

Middle Ability students

A Middle ability student who scored a KS2 fine average of 4.6, gives an Attainment 8 target of 49 points. This means that the pupil in Key stage 4 needs to score the same or higher than 49 points averaged over their best 8 GCSE’S. Eight subjects X 5 points (where two are doubled) = 50 points. So getting eight straight 5’s in this attainment model only gives you a Progress 8 score of 0.1 because 50 – 49 = 1/10 = 0.1

middle

Interestingly there isn’t a 50 point score at KS2 because the next fine score up is 4.7 that equates to 51 points. This means that if a student has an attainment target just one point above 4.6 the eight straight 7’s/C’s would result in negative attainment 8 score!

This strange anomaly means that even one KS2 fine level score difference can have a big impact on KS4 attainment 8 and therefore the school’s value added.

Of course, if the student gets scores higher than average grade then the school can show excellent progress and this is again where the option block 3 subjects can add significant value, because they have a statistically higher chance of giving you that. Art outperforms all Ebacc subjects and most option subjects at GCSE and gives a higher chance of getting higher grades also. Effectively, it’s as simple as making sure students have the ability to study for subjects they will do best in.

 

Low Ability students

At the lower levels of attainment the need for option block 3 subjects is even more striking. A student who has a KS2 fine score of 3.5 converts to an attainment estimate of 28 points. Statistically, the student should have little problem scoring these points, but of course statistics often mask hidden difficulty factors of pupils in this ability range. It does however seem to make life a little easier for low ability students to show progress and achieve. Whilst they will almost certain not add to the schools Core or Ebacc figures they can make significant gains in the Progress 8 score, compensating for tighter margins at the high end.

low

For example, add a couple of 5’s into this data and you have a very healthy Attainment 8 score. A low attaining student at this level might easily score 5 in a chosen art subject or pass a vocational course that scores them 5 also. If they hit the 30 points show in the table they would score 30-28 = 2/10 = 0.2 for Progress 8. But add two 5’s in Option subjects and they would score 34-28 = 6/10 = 0.6 for Progress 8. Now getting a 0.6 Progress 8 score from the high ability students could be very tough. Multiply this kind of attainment for low ability students across the school and suddenly these pupils are adding significant value added to your Attainment 8 scores. So low attaining students can really score you well in Progress 8 where high attaining students might not and arts subjects can give you those gains.

Remember Art has a 76.4% chance of getting a C for pupils of all ability ranges.

  

Playing the Attainment game

The Attainment 8 targets are very similar to Residuals, in that you are measuring the performance above or below a zero grade and the one thing I learned from working to residuals for many years was that it was always easier to get positive residuals in lower attainment bands than it was the higher ones. Even the DfE Progress 8 Measure guide Feb 2016 supports this; in fact it seems to suggest that NOT doing the Ebacc is better for general attainment at lower levels! It illustrates two students Gillian and Hardip. Gillian is a good attaining student who gets a value added score of +0.5 but Hardip (who didn’t even sit several Ebacc subjects) is shown in the table as having a value added score of +1.1 grades!

gillian

Hardip

So Gillian achieves the Core and Ebacc measures and also scores a Value Added Progress 8 score of +0.5, but Hardip does not attain the Core or the Ebacc measure. However, he DOES add significant Value Added to the school’s Progress 8 score because of his Option 4 subjects where he scores highly.

total

I believe that these examples have been selected carefully by the DfE to show schools that low attaining students can achieve towards improving school data. High attaining schools will score better on Ebacc but have to battle hard for their Progress 8 value added when previously they could more easily achieve the old 5 A*-C’s.

Lower attaining schools will have the reverse problem; Ebacc and Core targets will be tough, but they can now show real value added in the floor targets. That’s where your block 3 subjects could be vital because on average they can bring you higher points scores than the targets set by core subject performance. To hit your Progress 8 measure you need to be looking for the pupils to study subjects that score higher than their base average. With limited spaced available, you cannot afford for pupils to study for a subject that they will not perform well in.

Using current data

Obviously, schools are well used to analysing data in order to raise attainment at KS4 and the school will have its own preference to which data sources it uses. The difference now I believe will be, instead of setting high aspiration targets from data that use statistically less likely GCSE exam scores (what you want the pupil to achieve) you would need to look at the statistically most probable score and compare that to teacher subject assessments. For example:

FFT data shows that in Art, pupil A has a 15% chance of getting a grade 6/B, a 40% chance of getting a grade 5/C and a 25% chance of getting a grade 4/D. His Attainment 8 minimum target says a grade 5/C. But if the teacher assessments predict a grade 6/B then I would want that pupil to study art, unless all other subjects can outperform it. If on the other hand, the teacher’s data predicts a grade 5/C or 4/D then I might look for other subjects where they can score more highly.

Baseline testing

Now the data model you use for the school and the teacher assessments would have to be very secure and that’s why I believe that good baseline testing and monitoring is important. Simply dropping targets from KS2 EM results on all subjects at KS3 could be disastrous! Why? Because subjects like Art, PE, Drama, Music etc. are skills based and don’t perform to EM scores. If the EM target is too high the student might lose interest, too low and they will underperform. The subject should be free to set their own subject specific baseline testing model, in fact encouraged to do so, because you need the most accurate picture of how well they are going to perform against their estimated attainment 8 target. By comparing the EM based target to the subject-measured target you get an indicator plus or minus the threshold. The pupil should be given the higher of the two as their target. If the subject is an option 3 subject, the teacher’s assessments need to highlight performance significantly under the threshold before GCSE’s are opted for, so the best performing subjects can be taken.

Looking at National Trends

Obviously, your school will have its own KS4 and KS3 data trends to study and compare the performance of pupils, and these are likely to be your first consideration when determining which option and Ebacc subject’s pupils should study. But it’s also worth studying national data trends because these are what your school will be compared to. Here is a breakdown of 2014 GCSE exam results:

National exam results

For the full results table https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UhHfxt1X_vaofP7NfOWctnlTuXpD_dBlWwfoDH4VQ-k/edit?pli=1#gid=0

52.6 per cent  – achieving 5 or more GCSEs or equivalent at grade A* to C (including English and mathematics),

36.1 per cent – pupils entered for all subject areas of the English Baccalaureate

22.5 per cent – achieved the English Baccalaureate in 2013/14

Clearly, many option 3 subjects can be seen to outperform Ebacc and Core subjects. In fact the table (made up of most popular subjects), Art is the second most successful subject after the three single science subjects. It also has a high proportion of A star and A grades and a low percentage of E, F and G grades making it a proven subject for value added progress.

RE and Humanities score very highly at GCSE on average and are good value added subjects at higher grades but the variation between grade C and D is more marginal which may make it riskier for middle ability students. In Languages, French & Spanish do well, especially French considering its high pupil take up, but again the C/D margins are slimmer and they might suffer in national grade averages if more pupils begin to take them for GCSE.

It’s worth pointing out Science grades, which appear to fluctuate significantly from a comparatively low performing core science with high D grades to outstanding performance in single sciences. This may be because high ability pupils tend to take single sciences, where low academic students take core science. Despite the fact that data suggests a huge drop in numbers taking single sciences, the results imply that it is statistically preferable to have academic students take more sciences at GCSE.

Which curriculum strategy is right for your school?

Obviously each school is different and the needs of pupils vary, but there are commonalities between types of attainment. But one important dilemma facing schools is; ‘Do I limit the number of subjects the pupils can study, thereby increasing curriculum study time? Or do I offer a wider range of subjects to provide more chances of success?’

The eight-subject model

The strategy some schools have adopted in tackling the new demands is to move to an eight-subject model GCSE to increase curriculum time and hopefully improve chances of success. Some have even gone so far as to direct the subjects to be studied, removing most option choices. Schools may be able to increase each curriculum subject study time by between a half and one hour per week. Pupils take the Ebacc essential six and are restricted to two options in Block 3. But if a school believes their students should study additional science, or languages then they may be allowed only one option choice. Some faith schools are insisting RE is taken, which will remove any option choice at all in an eight-subject model.

The eight-subject model might look something like this:

3 subjects (2 x Doubled) from the following where the third score is carried into block 3
Block 1 Core – English Lang
Block 1 Core – English Lit
Block 1 Core – Maths
3 Subjects studied from the following 
Block 2 Ebacc – Single or first Science 
Block 2 Ebacc – Humanities
Block 2 Ebacc – Language
Block 2 Ebacc – Computer Science
2 Subjects are studied and counted
Block 3 Option – Carried over English slot
Block 3 Option – Extra Double Award Science slot or Option subject
Block 3 Option – Additional compulsory slot for some schools or Option subject
For example: In a 25 hour timetable (5 periods over 5 days) where compulsory subjects (if not included above; PE, RE, Computing, PSHE) are allocated one hour each this leaves 21 hours study time. This might be allocated something like this; 4 Maths, 2 English Literature, 3 English Lang, 3 Science, leaving 9 hours for 4 subjects (2.25 hours each). Schools might gain the RE/Computing hour back if students take it as a full option or the PSHE hour if compulsory Sex-Ed can be timetabled as an isolated unit.

This strategy relies on improving attainment through providing a rigid curriculum model with more study time. However, I think this could have serious impacts on Progress 8 headline indicator. Yes you are gaining more curriculum time per subject, but remember each pupils individual targets match their ability and they only need to drop one grade point in one subject for them to potentially fail to reach their attainment 8 target, let alone better it. If this happens in the eight-subject model you have a much narrower area to recover that dropped grade from. Also, where an almost identical curriculum model is enforced across Key Stage 4, you aren’t tailoring all the options subjects to individual ability and previous performance and this will be crucial to the school making positive progress. Essentially, by removing pupils preferred options you are putting Ebacc success above Progress 8 Floor Standard and it’s this one that is the headline measure that triggers Ofsted inspection.

Statistically, subjects in option block 3 outperform those in blocks 1 and 2 at GCSE, so to restrict those options to a minimum doesn’t make sense. Just comparing English Language 2014 GCSE results with Literature you can see that Language does not perform as well at the higher grades and vice-versa at C and D grades. So getting the two comparable results your students require will be made more difficult in the eight-subject model. Additionally, employing this model across the whole school will deplete non-Ebacc subjects’ KS4 time. Now you might redirect this teaching time to make non-specialists teach Ebacc subjects (this is already happening) but I would argue that this unlikely to provide the quality education your pupils would need. Compounding the problem with this model will be demotivated, unhappy pupils who can’t study the subjects they want. If a pupil or teacher experiences difficulties with a particular subject, or there is a personality clash, confidence issue etc. where can you go? You haven’t any options open.

In the eight-subject model, you aren’t prioritising the pupils’ attainment 8; you’re relying on getting higher than predicted results from more academic subjects, there is no margin for error and little insurance against failure.

The nine-subject model

In a nine-subject GCSE model you have a slightly more content workforce and happier pupils but it may make achieving the Core and Ebacc targets slightly harder due to less curriculum time. To offset this though is the greater leverage it gives you to meet the floor standard, because you NEED the students to study subjects where they will better their Maths English combined average. A nine-subject model might look like this:

3 subjects (2 x Doubled) from the following where the third score can be carried into block 3
Block 1 Core – English Lang
Block 1 Core – English Lit
Block 1 Core – Maths
3 Subjects studied from
Block 2 Ebacc – Single or first Science 
Block 2 Ebacc – Humanities
Block 2 Ebacc – Language
Block 2 Ebacc – Computer Science
3 Subjects studied
Block 3 Option – Extra Science slot or Option subject
Block 3 Option – Third science for some or Option subject
Block 3 Option – Option subject
 For example: In a 25 hour timetable (5 periods over 5 days) where compulsory subjects (if not included above; PE, RE, Computing, PSHE) are allocated one hour each this leaves 21 hours study time. This might be allocated something like this; 4 Maths, 2 English Literature, 3 English Lang, 3 Science, leaving 9 hours for 5 or 6 subjects = 1.8 hours for 9 subject models. Schools might gain the RE/Computing hour back if students take it as a full option or the PSHE hour if compulsory Sex-Ed can be timetabled as an isolated unit.

In this model, all students gain at least one additional option. This may not sound like much gain, but if the subject studied is an arts option for example, it should statistically give you one or more additional attainment points towards the Progress 8 figure. This additional point could offset any slip-ups in core or Ebacc subjects or bring the positive value added you are looking for. The more high scoring subjects your pupils can study, the better the VA will be. I would argue that the nine-subject model offers the best flexibility for school and student, and offers the right balance of curriculum time. In the nine-subject model, a tenth subject might be studied in the RE/Computing hour or additional curriculum time. But your own curriculum and school day will matter here and influence which is best for you.

Note: Clearly, additional study time might be found by limiting PSHE to the statuary Sex Ed and delivering it as an isolated unit in the year, or extending the RE/Computing hour to a full option subject.

Summary

The new measures are going to be tough, but with the new floor indicator being progress, Heads will want to ensure that even with limited choice available, every student is studying for subjects in which they perform best. Rather than precluding the arts, the new progress measures make high performing subjects like the arts even more important.

  • Art & Design can add significant value added to the headline indicators when compared to all subjects.
  • FFT data shows it’s in the school’s and the pupil’s best interests to enable them to study for 3 subjects in Block 3 that they will score highly in and are motivated to pass, in order to maximise attainment to the new floor standard.
  • Making large positive value added Progress 8 scores could be harder for high attaining students and it will be very easy for them to fail to show attainment 8.
  • Large value added Progress 8 gains can be made by lower attaining students and they can now add significant VA to the floor standard when their attainment counted for little under the previous indicators.

 

Sources; DfE Progress 8 Measure in 2016 and 2017, Guide for maintained and secondary schools, academies and free schools March 2015

Joint Council for Qualifications 2014 Full GCSE results breakdown

‘Progress 8 – measuring, understanding and improving performance in a changing world,’ Paul Charman FFT Managing Director

Paul Carney is an education consultant from Newcastle upon Tyne, specialising in creative subjects.

He was a Head of Subject for seven years, an AST for nine years and is a member of the board of the NSEAD. He has considerable teaching experience of both Primary and Secondary stage teaching in Art, Maths, ICT and Design Technology. He has also had Whole School responsibilities in Assessment, ICT, Coaching and Mentoring and successfully completed Leadership Pathways training with the NCSL. He regularly delivers CPD for schools across the country and for leading education institutions.

For a PDF version of this document contact paulcarney700@gmail dot com

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s