20 Oct 2014
Areas to consider
RECENT PERFORMANCE AND CAPACITY TO DRIVE PROGRESS
1.1 Recent Performance
•Is the school reducing days lost on
Fixed Period Exclusions?
•Is data effectively analysed to identify disproportionality within specific groups?
•Are the number of repeat exclusions reducing as a result of effective intervention?
•Are out of class referrals and internal exclusions rigorously monitored?
•Are internal referrals and seclusion reducing as a result of effective intervention?
•Is pupils’ learning being maintained in any on site provision?
•Is data on the re-integration of internal exclusions being collected and monitored to inform intervention?
•Is data collected to inform SLT on how safe pupils feel in and around the school?
•Are incidents of low level disruption monitored by subject leaders?
•Is behaviour out of class and between lessons monitored by all staff?
•Are pupils accessing appropriate off site provision and is their progress being monitored?
•Are pupils' attitudes to learning monitored through effective lesson observations?
•Days lost to FPEs show no significant improvement
•Data not effectively analysed to identify vulnerable groups
•Data demonstrates that a significant number of the same pupils are regularly excluded
•Patterns of out class referrals not monitored or used to inform intervention
•Referrals and use of internal seclusion is ineffective
•Pupils do not continue to make progress while in seclusion
•Class teachers and subject leaders take no responsibility for monitoring or preventing exclusion
•A high proportion of pupils express concern over their safety outside of lessons. The school does not routinely monitor out of class behaviour.
•Low level disruption is reported if additional staff assistance is required.
•Corridors are unruly and unsupervised by adults.
•Pupils accessing offsite
‘Alternative Provision’ do not achieve.
•Low level disruption is not seen as a result of poor teaching and learning.
•Days lost to FPEs remain the same term on term
•Exclusion data analysed but not in depth and not used to inform intervention
•There is some multi-agency support but it is not part of a continuum of support
•Data on referrals is collected but not effectively interrogated to inform intervention
•Internal referrals and seclusion remain the same
•Progress leaders are aware of issues but do not address them through departmental action
•Some data is available which collects pupil opinion on the impact of reintegration on their own learning and that of others.
•Inappropriate out of class behaviour is challenged by some staff. Incidents are reported.
•Availability of data is inconsistent, but where available, is being used to inform practice
•Staff monitor lesson changeover and out of lesson time.
•Pupils regularly attend
•Pupils attitudes to learning vary from subject to subject but there are pockets of good practice.
•Days lost to FPEs show significant improvement termly.
•Data is rigorously interrogated to inform planning and gap is reducing
•There is multi-agency support for individual pupils with regular patterns of exclusion and effective re-integration practice
•Intervention is in place at all levels to ensure pupils at risk of exclusion access a personalised curriculum.
•Referrals to in school provision is reducing following effective intervention and improved quality of teaching
• Progress leaders monitor by subject and take appropriate action to improve learning.
•All pupils on transition back to class are supported by identified staff /mentors who provide detailed information on their learning and social progress
•The school is aware of
‘hotspots’ and implement appropriate action involving all staff to manage these areas.
•Disruptive behaviours have been identified, are being monitored and pupils are reminded to improve using agreed strategies
•With staff support, pupils self regulate on corridors and pupils feel safe and secure during out of lesson time.
•Pupils regularly attend
Alternative Provision and continue to make progress.
•Pupils are challenged and engaged In most lessons so fewer incidents of LLD occur.
School Reporting Framework
Areas to consider
1.2 Capacity to drive progress
•Is behaviour a priority for the school?
•Is the school behaviour leader a member of the SLT?
•Are the governors actively involved?
•Are all staff actively engaged and modelling positive behaviour?
•Behaviour is not identified in the
SEF as an issue
•The Behaviour Leader is not a member of the SLT
•The Governing Body take no active role in the monitoring of behaviour
•A significant number of adults do not model appropriate behaviour
•The monitoring of behaviour is not an integral part of performance management systems
•Behaviour is identified in SEF but not sufficiently resourced
•The Behaviour Leader is a member of the SLT but has a predominantly pastoral role
•Governors perform statutory duties but not actively involved in preventative measures
•Some adults model appropriate behaviours but pupils report an inconsistency of approach
•There are effective self evaluation processes including the effective use of data in place to continuously support improvement
•The Behaviour Leader plays an active role in this self-evaluation and leading on improvement
•The Governing Body takes an active part in monitoring behaviour and ensures it is sufficiently resourced
•Pupils report that they have respect for, and are respected by staff
•Has the school got a concise picture of current behaviour issues based on an accurate evidence base?
•Has the school allocated sufficient resources including CPD to improve behaviour following analysis of relevant data?
•Does the school behaviour leader have the required knowledge and expertise to address attendance priorities?
•Is there a relevant mix of provision to support groups and individual pupils, including support for vulnerable pupils?
•Is there sufficient resources available to offer personalised learning to pupils at risk of exclusion?
•The school has ineffective systems for collecting data at every level.
•The Behaviour Leader accesses insufficient CPD and is given insufficient time to carry out role effectively
•Effective whole school CPD through a blended approach is not used
•The school has not personalised the curriculum for pupils at risk of exclusion
•The school collects limited data
•The Behaviour Leader manages the role within an extensive leadership remit
•CPD to improve behaviour is reactive and not strategically planned linked to performance management and data
•There is a range of personalised learning opportunities available to pupils but they are not effectively monitored and evaluated
•Allocation of resources is based on a cycle of planning, delivery and review.
•An effective programme of CPD to match staff needs and the changing demands of pupils is in place
•The school behaviour leader is skilled in the effective deployment of available resources to meet the changing needs of pupils
•Pupils access appropriate personalised learning that supports their attainment
•Does the school effectively liaise with and access the range of services available to meet its needs?
•Is the school part of an effective school partnership?
•Is time allocated to the behaviour leader to promote the positive attitudes and the development of social and emotional skills as well as react to difficult behaviour?
•The school do not attempt to access external support
•The school is not in a school partnership
•The behaviour lead has insufficient time to effectively liaise with other agencies
•The behaviour lead is not in a position to inform curriculum development
•Referrals are ad hoc and not followed through
•The school is in a partnership but this is not used effectively to benefit from sharing resources with other schools
•The Behaviour Leader has limited protected time to coordinate responses but cannot always follow the actions through for all pupils
•The behaviour lead and others are promoting social and emotional skills but this is not consistent across the school
Relationships with other agencies are strong with quick effective referral systems
•The school is in an effective school partnership which promotes quality first teaching to support the needs of vulnerable pupils
•The Behaviour leader has sufficient protected time to review behaviour support and reallocate resource as required
•The behaviour lead works regularly with curriculum lead to identify opportunities to promote social and emotional skill development
School Reporting Framework
Areas to consider
1.2 Capacity to drive progress
2.1 Quality of planning
•Are the whole school community, parents/carers and services clear about their roles and responsibilities?
•Does the school work well with pupils and parents/carers and are roles and expectations made clear?
•Do the SLT have the skills, knowledge and understanding to engage the whole school community in taking responsibility for behaviour
•Do the NS Consultant
Team/BSS/other external partners effectively engage with the school?
•Behaviour is seen as the responsibility of pastoral staff and
•Relationships with parents/carers is poor
•SLT do not model effective practice in engaging disaffected pupils and their families.
•There are no formal support contracts with L.A. Advisers or
SLAs with other agencies
•There is a small number of adults who share responsibility for improving behaviour
•Most parents/carers engage except those of disaffected pupils
•SLT model effective practice in engaging some parents/carers but not the most disaffected
•There are Adviser support contacts in place but they are not effectively monitored
•Does the school have a formal behaviour policy and anti-bullying policy which have been agreed with all key stakeholders?
•Does the behaviour policy have clear escalation processes understood by all stakeholders
•Are these policies consistently implemented and regularly monitored?
•Is there a priority action plan as part of the whole school improvement plan?
•There are no formal polices or polices which are unclear
•Poor communication of policies and low levels of consultation
•No plan or inconsistent implementation or adherence to any policies
•There is no consistent implementation of escalation processes across the school
•There is no action plan linked to a whole school improvement plan as result of effective self evaluation
•The school has an Antibullying policy but it is not regularly reviewed and monitored
•The escalation procedures for behaviour are not consistently used across the school
•Policies are reviewed but does not involve comprehensive consultation process with all stakeholders
•There is an action plan in place but it is not effectively monitored
•Does the school regularly collate and analyse its data to enable effective monitoring of behaviour including formal exclusions and referrals to in school support?
•Are interventions reviewed and their impact monitored?
•Is there a clear escalation process for groups of pupils who persistently misbehave with appropriate support for them and their parents/carers?
•Does the school link behaviour data to pupil level attainment?
•Is the monitoring of behaviour part of the school evaluation of teaching and learning?
•No data collection, performance not monitored and problems not identified.
•Where data is available the school its is not effectively interrogated to inform intervention
•Interventions are inconsistently applied and reviewed infrequently
•There are no structured escalation procedures in place
•School is unclear about its definition of low level disruption
•Improving behaviour is not seen as part of the teaching and learning agenda
•Limited data collected but it is not rigorously interrogated to inform intervention
•There is a range of interventions but their impact is not routinely evaluated
•There are pockets of good practice within the school of consistent application of the escalation process
•Some departments/year leaders link behaviour data with attainment data
•All adults accept responsibility for behaviour in and around the school
•Parents fully engage in review meetings both for individual pupils and whole school meetings
•SLT provide inspired leadership of behaviour
•Effective support contracts are in place
•Effective policies have been developed in consultation with all stakeholders and are consistently applied and monitored.
•The school is signed up to the
Bedford Borough Anti-bullying
•There is clarity of roles, responsibilities and expected outcomes
•Effective self evaluation ensures that the action plan is monitored to continuously judge progress against planned outcomes.
•Interventions are monitored and reviewed to assess impact on attendance
•Escalation process is clearly understood and consistently used by all staff
•Clear definition of truancy exists and interventions planned and monitored to measure impact
•Clear links are made between behaviour and teaching and learning
School Reporting Framework
Areas to consider
•Has the school agreed an appropriate target within a school partnership or set its own challenging target to reduce FPEs
•Are the school staff aware of the target to reduce exclusions and improve behaviour?
•Does the school use a range of effective strategies to provide support, incentives and sanctions, including measures reduce low level disruption?
•Is improving teaching and learning central to behaviour improvement?
•Does the school use Parenting
The school has no agreed targets to reduce exclusions
School staff are unaware of the target or the challenge involved in improving behaviour
No strategies are in place to positive behaviour and reduce low level disruption
Behaviour is seen as a pastoral issue and not a result of good teaching and learning
Parenting contracts for behaviour are not used
•The school has its own targets but they are not part of an agreed partnership target
•These targets are not owned by all stakeholders
•There is a range of strategies available but they are not consistently applied
•There is not a whole commitment to personalising learning in order to improve behaviour
•The school use a parenting contacts but they are not formally arranged with appropriate support for parents/carers
•School has agreed a target and milestones towards target are being achieved
•School staff have all contributed information to agree the target
•A range of effective strategies are in place which are jointly monitored and developed.
•Improving teaching is a key part of the whole school policy to reduce low level disruption
•Parenting Contracts are used as part of positive support for parents/carers
•Is relative performance fed back regularly to SLT, staff governors, parents/carers and the LA?
•Are pupils’ views considered and acted upon where appropriate?
•Does the school work partnership with other schools effectively?
•Does the school have an effective communication strategy for promoting positive behaviour to parents and the wider community?
•Does the school have effective strategies for delivering key messages to all stakeholders when necessary.
•There is no communication on attendance performance with staff, governors, parents and the
•Consultation with pupils is tokenistic.
•No partnership work is done with other schools
•Schools only communicate with parents/carers when behaviour is worsening and sanctions are to be enforced
•There is limited feedback to the whole school community
•There is a pupil council but this not represent the diversity of the pupil population
•The school are in a partnership but there are no shared targets or resources
•Key messages reach most carers/parents but fail to reach those ‘hard to reach parents/carers’
•There are a range of effective strategies to communicate performance to the full range of audiences.
•Schools working in partnership share values, attitudes and ethos across schools.
•Schools use newsletter, celebration assemblies, notes home and governor letters to promote improved and maintained good behaviour
•Early intervention involving parents/carers is well planned.