The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

PERSONAL LEARNING PLAN PROGRAMME: 2002-2004
EVALUATION REPORT

3 PERSONAL LEARNING PLANS - SCHOOLS' OWN MODELS

The ten case studies of PLP development demonstrate a diverse range of practice. Evaluative analysis therefore has two major components - firstly, to describe the range of that practice; and secondly, to set these varying models against the guidelines set out in the Framework document of 2000, in the New Community Schools policy documentation.

The ten, detailed evaluation case studies represent almost one third of the schools involved in the project. The sampled range of approaches is fairly typical of the whole group of 32. This view is derived from scanning the schools' reports, observations made at working groups and interviews with development officers.

3.1 The Scope, Scale and Focus of PLPs

The development strategy behind the PLP programme was to encourage a bottom-up model of development, with each of the 32 schools striving to produce their own PLPs around a central framework. It is clear that some schools worked outside the given framework.

Curriculum-based coverage is present in all case study schools and varies in extent and emphasis. For example, in Sandpiper High school it is one aspect of pupils' self-evaluative activities. These come under two headings:

• Understand yourself as a developing individual
• Track your academic progress.

Pupils were asked to rate their feelings on a four point scale about each of their subjects; to estimate how their teachers rated their performance; and to make a judgement about 'How I think I could do.'

This personal learning plan approach is based entirely on self-review and self-evaluation in twelve areas, including career choice, health and moral issues. The procedure recommended by the plan is based on Edward De Bono's 'Six thinking hats' rubric where young people were asked to employ different cognitive and affective processes, each denoted by a different 'hat' (for example, seeking and producing information; the identification of personal deficits; and creative thinking and planning for optimum development.) This self-review leads to the identification of personal actions that will contribute to achieving goals.

This approach was developed to complement the school's pre-existing target-setting and monitoring system. The PLP was purely for each pupil's use and not accessible to teachers or parents without the pupils consent.

Contrasting with this approach was Longside Primary School's PLP where, under teacher guidance, pupils noted 5-14 learning outcomes from eight curricular areas over the course of a school year and also identified parts on which they wished to concentrate. The resulting document with its review of progress became part of the reporting process to parents, accompanied by folders of pupils' work.

The contrasts between these two approaches suggest much of the range of practice. Many questions are raised which assist in the categorisation of PLP procedures and processes, for example:

• Do pupils take part in planning on a one-to-one basis with teachers or mentors?
• Does the planning process include both curriculum-based review with the negotiation of personal development goals, such as the growth of confidence when speaking with adults? What structure best accommodates these distinct elements?
• Who is the plan for? To what extent do the structure and procedure of planning reconcile self-evaluation and self-assessment with teaching needs for record keeping and forward planning at group and class level?

The previous two PLP examples from Longside PS and Sandpiper HS, although differing in their approach to review and target setting, can be seen as touching on much of the curriculum. Such strategies, in turn, contrast with more narrowly focused development work within specific curricular areas. For example, a secondary school and its associated primary had used approaches focused initially on the development and review of specific knowledge and skills relating to developing approaches to scientific report writing and learning to construct line graphs. This micro approach was used to demonstrate to pupils the processes of

• understanding a task and its associated learning outcomes
• identifying criteria for success
• completing the task
• reviewing the task against the criteria for success
• sharing the review process with other pupils
• identifying steps towards improvement.

This detailed work, over a six to eight week period, led into the use of a software program (PICASSO) which allowed pupils to create a learning plan across key curriculum areas based on the 5-14 programme.

While the balance between formally assessed elements of the curriculum and personal/social/health elements was variable, all the case study PLPs had elements of both. One of the most comprehensive plans was produced by Torrfield HS, building on work initiated as part of the NCS phase one pilot (1999-2002). The case study for this evaluation focused on the use of the plan with S3.

An initial plan was modified by discussion with a working group with representatives from employers from commerce and industry, the NHS, Careers Scotland, the local FE College, Community Education, teachers and pupils. It consists of an introduction for the pupils, stressing personal responsibility and improvement across its five strands. The overall introduction was prepared by the manager of a local building society and the introduction to each of the strands by various other members of the working group:

• Strand 1: Attendance, punctuality and behaviour, the employers' perspective - a member of Government and Public Affairs from a local international industry
• Strand 2: Subject attainment - the school librarian and the depute head, Torrfield High School
• Strand 3: Well-being - a local General Practitioner and a Health Development Officer for the local NHS Board
• Strand 4: School life - two pupils at Torrfield High School
• Strand 5: Out of school life - a Community Education Worker from the Torrfield Integrated Learning Community (the successor to New Community Schools)

In the plan itself, the pages associated with behaviour and attendance ask pupils to insert target percentages or ratings on a termly basis. For each term the pupil would identify actions that could support the achievement of the target. Also identified would be 'people who could help' (but not 'how' they might help.) The second sheet within the strand asks pupils to enter both the target and the 'actual' percentage or rating for each term; and to comment on these.

For subject attainment, 'initial targets' were to be entered by pupils (Standard Grades 1-7 with a 'final target' entered some months later, after a review of evidence, such as homework, exams and ongoing assessment.)

Two slots require the pupil to enter actions needed after setting 'initial' and 'final' targets. To help this process, the school provided a list of 26 possible action points for pupils related to improvement across different curriculum areas. Two examples are

• make audio recordings of your notes (or summaries) and listen to them often
• prepare a study/homework timetable and stick to it.

It is also a requirement of the plan that levels (either 5-14 or Standard Grade) should be recorded for five core cross-curricular skills: communication; numeracy; problem-solving; technology and working with others. The depute head had carried out a curriculum mapping exercise, identifying which skills were addressed in each area of the subject curriculum. This drew on a simple sheet completed by each department or subject. It required information about which of the five core skills would be covered in each course (S1, S2, S3). Thereafter, each designated teacher completed an individual sheet with the appropriate level for the subject for each pupil. These are collected by the pupils from their teachers and 'averaged' levels for each core skill are entered into the relevant single sheet by pupils.

Additionally, the three sheets relating to Well-being, School Life and Out-of-School Life ask pupils to indicate, by ticking, which core skills are addressed by their chosen targets.

The pupils' personal development plans, consisting of targets and review sheets for each of the five strands and for the five core skills, are kept in the Social Education Department. Their targets, actions and reviews are transcribed by individual pupils into their homework diaries in an abbreviated form. These homework diaries also contain space for parental signatures.

The overall PDP process is introduced to pupils in the social education environment at the beginning of the school year.

'the whole concept of PDP was introduced to them through their social education class. They came into SE and they were given the booklets and we went through the whole pack, this is why we are doing this etc. etc. …you've got to give them the bigger picture. At the end of the day the reason for target setting is to make them better. Better at numeracy, better at communication, I.T….. all these things. So they are going to work better, feel better about themselves, a lot more confident….they are taking it out to the workplace….more employable. ….' (Social Education Teacher)

Personal planning in relation to the three strands, Well-being, School Life and Out-of-School Life, followed the Social Education curriculum and timetable. The Social Education teacher, working with S3, outlined this process:

'…we take each topic - at the moment we have just done well-being …What we did was that we go over and talk about every topic. At the moment we are doing relationships. In that we talk about what kind of relationships they have with certain people. ….we go through all those types of relationships ….talk about contraception, sexual health, all that. …..we give them a self-evaluation sheet. What do they need to know about? What's important to them, what issues do they ….need to know about that we've not discussed or covered? We put them into groups and they write down topic issues. We go through a whole sheet….an a-z type thing - ' I need to know this; I would like to know that…' They rate it between 5 and 0 and from that list they would choose two targets that they really need to know about…but they need to change…' (Social Education Teacher)

This extract raises an important issue - is personal planning in this area about teaching a curriculum or supporting individual personal growth? In both the introduction to the school plan and in the SEED Framework document, there are clear intentions to support individual, personal development. Indeed, the working group had decided that Torrfield's approach would be known as personal development planning.

In introducing the concept of planning to young people, stress is placed on the need for evidence to demonstrate progress. It is the pupil's responsibility to collect this and organise it in the pack retained in the Social Education department. The Social Education teacher described the process:

'….they come back to us every so often to see what their targets are. We check how they are doing. Every so often we just bring it up off the cuff and ask are they doing okay, are they on target or are they not. When it gets to the time to review their target - Easter in this case - they have a target review sheet. How well have you done? Where is your evidence? How can you prove it?….they always have to produce evidence in their folders so they have that pack. They do that for their core skills.' (Social Education Teacher)

The school's PLP is appended ( Appendix B) to this report.

The ambitious Personal Development Plan project in Torrfield High School embraces knowledge acquisition, skills development, behaviour and attitudes, planning, learning, personal development and teaching. The Plan includes five strands and the addition of a core skills component. The first (Attendance, Punctuality and Behaviour) and second (Subject attainment) strands have traditionally been the focus of much school reporting. In these areas the more innovative element consists of supporting pupils in reviewing teacher-ascribed levels of attainment; in negotiating targets and plans for future achievement; and, in the case of behaviour and attendance, reviewing information from school records.

The three strands of Well-being, Life in School and Outside-of-School Life seem to relate most closely to elements of the personal and social development curriculum as it is taught. When the researcher visited the school, many PDP targets for Well-being related to the topic Sexual Health which was being taught at the time. 'Personal' targets were simply group or class priorities in relation to knowledge of the topic, for example:

• learn more about abortion - how, why and its effect
• learn more about young mothers.(S3 pupils)

While these might relate directly to the personal experience and expectations of the individual, they are undoubtedly knowledge-based curriculum targets. There appeared to have been limited opportunity for individual pupils to define personal development goals such as these stated in the introduction to the PDP itself:

'Well-being is about looking after your physical and emotional health and helping you to achieve your hopes and dreams. It is about:

• following a diet that suits you,
• being active
• having a good relationship with your family and friends,
• coping with stress, and
• feeling great about yourself!' (Introduction to pupil version of the PDP)

The depute head responsible for PDPs felt it was important 'that attention should be paid to areas of development relevant to pupils' emotional security and needs'

However, due to the sensitivity of social, personal and emotional issues, it had been decided not to ask pupils to self assess but to identify topics about which they wanted to know more. This in itself may account for the slide towards a curricular, rather than 'personal' focus in this school's project. While school management's sensitivity to the privacy of pupils' personal lives is understandable, there may be implications of this deliberate move from personal goal setting to the identification of knowledge needs. This possible conceptual confusion between learning needs within a specific curriculum and personal development needs was beginning to emerge in the contrasting discourse of pupils and staff.

The inclusion of curriculum-based elements embraces several different approaches to review and subsequent planning. For example, in Torrfield HS the setting of targets in each subject involved the identification of a current Standard Grade level of performance (1-7) with a corresponding target to be entered sometime later, after the review of relevant evidence. For the pupil, the target setting process involved moving from one numerical grade to another, with specifying of the outcomes to be addressed. Consequently, the actions identified by pupils to achieve these target grades were broad and anodyne, for example, 'Keep up with the class work and homework' or 'Practise.'

By contrast, work in Longside PS involved the allocation of learning outcomes to pupils, for example, in Mathematics - 2D shapes, rotational symmetry, tiling, angles and diagonals. In relation to decimals, the class would be learning to do processing work to the second decimal place and also about the third decimal place. (All the pupils were working through 5-14 level E in Mathematics class work.) These outcomes were teacher determined from the 5-14 curriculum. Subsequently pupils selected which of these topics they wanted to concentrate on, for reasons either of weakness or preference.

From the case studies, the most specific example of personal review and target setting came from Jenner PS where pupils worked on the skills of science reporting and line graph construction. The processes of self and peer assessment and identifying targets for improvement were very detailed as part of the learning and teaching sequence, rather than retrospectively. This puts self-evaluation and review at the heart of the learning process and relates it to PLPs.

These differential approaches have implications for the quality of learning and planning; and for the overall management of personal learning. They raise fundamental questions about the nature of PLPs. Is it mainly a functional review and target-setting exercise? Or should it address pedagogical issues about the intimate relationship between feedback and learning?

Another approach has been to encourage individual pupils to choose one curriculum area on which to concentrate over a planning block of some six to ten weeks. In Willow PS this was initially done by parents and children and was further reviewed with the class teacher. This exercise with primary 7 proved time-consuming, as substantial, individual consultation was needed to identify targets associated with the chosen area. Ultimately it was decided to abandon the one-to-one approach with school management identifying the following changes:

• 'teachers will choose group targets in the curriculum section
• pupils will choose individual targets in the PSE section
• parents will have the opportunity to discuss/choose with their child the PSE targets and make comment on the curriculum targets
• teachers and pupils will evaluate the outcomes which will be sent home for parental comment
• targets will be reduced to 3 per session
• P4 will be introduced to the process'(Willow PS Report to LTS)

A number of schools had started off their PLP development work with one complete class or uncommonly with an entire year group in secondary school. A second group had chosen a sample of pupils from either one or several classes. For example, Ryeland HS involved 16 S1 pupils in a practical section and one entire S2 class (27). School managers anticipated that many issues would require exploration in both the production and management of personal learning plans; and that these would emerge from small scale work with a lesser risk of overload.

It is worth noting that schools previously involved in PLP development as part of the NCS programme tended to be more confident about larger scale involvement. It should also be noted however that there may be a trade-off between the scale of pupil involvement and the quality of dialogue between pupil and teacher/mentor.

3.2 The Tone of Plans

A scan across the PLPs from the case studies schools suggests that there may be an overemphasis on deficits in achievement and learning, at the cost of recognising achievement. The Torrfield HS PLP, for example, has a fairly detailed approach which involves the setting of anticipated levels of achievement, the identification of actions to be taken towards reaching a target and the subsequent review and comment on achievement of the targets, or otherwise. In each of the personal, social and health development areas pupils are asked to identify and review two targets and to say to what extent these have been achieved - completely, partially or not at all. It is possible therefore that in both the cognitive and personal development domains pupils could fail to meet identified targets - a negative and discouraging experience. There is no formal mechanism in the plan for pupils to identify their strengths and achievements; rather the emphasis is on a continuous striving for improvement. This is of course, part of the purpose of personal planning but its relentlessness might be well tempered by the explicit celebration of success wherever and whenever found.

3.3 Systematic Review and Monitoring

Establishing systems to ensure that learning outcomes and goals were always accessible and revisited with appropriate frequency was mentioned as a difficulty by a number of schools. In Torrfield HS pupils transcribed targets and their review from their PLPs to their homework diaries and work was under way to devise a credit card type record that pupils could carry in wallet or pocket.

In Longside PS initial enthusiasm in keeping PLPs updated waned a little after the first term. The accessibility of PLP documentation could be a problem. A physical record stored in one place could make problems especially in secondary schools. Where PLP templates were stored on computer, the physical location and availability of machines were important factors in allowing pupils to update their plans at the optimum time. The use of web-based access and computers freely available in primary classrooms were helpful in keeping PLPs live and meaningful for pupils. This approach was augmented by the engagement of teachers or tutors in supporting pupils self-monitoring.

The use of learning logs and weekly diaries also could assist in the collation of information and evidence about the achievement of goals. However, the quality of pupils' commentary often depended on the specificity of learning outcomes and associated targets. Sometimes weekly diaries were repetitive and bland replicating the broad statements found in the plans themselves, for example, 'Practise writing in sentences' would become a series of almost identical weekly entries such as 'I wrote a story and made sure I put in full stops and capital letters. I am getting better at this.' (P7 pupil weekly diary)

There was varied practice in reviewing and monitoring. The quality and detail of the reviewing process itself was an area of concern for a number of teachers. In Jenner PS pupils' skills in analysis, reporting on their own work and evaluating the achievement of success criteria were developed as preparation for the personal learning planning process. Indeed the process documented in the teacher's diary describes the development of best practice in pedagogy where assessment and feedback are an essential part of learning.

This contrasts with the approach in several other schools where the use of grades or levels as part of target setting precluded the identification of exactly what pupils needed to do to improve. Their personal plans showed that they wanted to move from, for example, a three to a two or one in Standard Grade Maths. Their equivalent actions would be:

• revising work from a past jotter
• looking over past homework
• doing your homework better and doing more homework
• attending the Maths clinic, held at lunchtime - 'you can go if you feel you're stuck.'
• when you revise your past work you should be looking at 'things you struggled on …testing and re-testing yourself; and also you should look at your strengths.' (Torrfield High School)

In the last statement the pupil begins to touch on a level of analysis and review needed for improvement.

The review process in particular concerned some teachers in relation to lower-attaining pupils:

'….you've got to bear in mind that in school subjects there are SEN children who are educationally challenged and I think when you are setting targets you have to bear them in mind. …..

When we are going through all this it does take a while longer to go through these sheets with them and we maybe need to try and make it a bit easier for them. That is not set out as well for children with learning difficulties.'(Social education teacher)

3.4 Impact for Pupils

Two sources of data contribute to judgements about the impact of involvement in PLPs for young people. Firstly, focus groups with pupils themselves and, secondly, the views of their teachers together constitute one of the most positive pictures from this evaluation study. From this finding, in turn, the most welcomed feature was the increase in dialogue between young people and their teachers.

In Longside PS pupils drawn from primaries 4, 5 and 6 identified a number of advantages. The children thought that personal learning plans helped with national tests because 'when you read it, it tells you what kind of stuff you'll be doing in the test.' If they had not had a personal learning plan they thought that 'you'd be more nervous and more worried and you don't feel like you're going to pass.' Another child said 'if you didn't have your plan you'd need to work extra hard. You'd need to get everything done extra hard …. It helps you know what you need to know …. If you didn't have your plan you wouldn't know what your topic is.'

There was considerable emphasis on the retrospective use of plans:

'they help you when you need to know things what you've forgotten. They tell you what your topic is and you can do research. Your personal learning plan reminds you.'

They were clear about the ownership of the plans; it was 'for yourself:'

'People at home they can look at it but it's not theirs.'

'When you take it home they think it is really worth doing.'

'It's your responsibility and you have to take care of it …. It tells your Mum and Dad what you've been doing. It lets them know how you've been getting on and see the things they don't know.'
(Pupils, Longside PS)

They were particularly eloquent about the benefits of increased mutual knowledge between pupil and teacher. The researcher asked them what their teachers thought:

'They are happy knowing what you feel.'

'It lets them know that sometimes you're working hard and sometimes not.'

'It tells you what you need to practice and what the teacher didn't know about. They get to know more about you out of school and what you enjoy.'
(Pupils, Longside PS)

The researcher asked if they wanted teachers to know these things. The pupils thought this was important - 'It helps the teacher to understand. It lets them know what you're really like.' One girl said that it was important that the teacher should have 'a proper impression of you.' (Pupils, Longside PS)

Older children (P7) identified a range of benefits that pointed up issues of self-confidence, self-efficacy and learning.

• 'I feel confident about the targets and the teacher tells you what to do.'
• 'It makes you feel responsible for yourself - it feels good - it makes you feel more confident.'
• 'When I look at how I have got on but I feel relieved when I see what the targets were.'
• 'It makes you feel happy with yourself.'
• 'You feel more enthusiastic about your work when you have targets.'
• 'You need to write down what you really need help on.'
• 'You should stick to your targets and think about what you can and can't do and be realistic.'
• 'Even if you're finding difficulties, you should try to keep to your targets'
• 'As a record of what you do, you can see what you've done.'

(Pupils, Longside PS)

Improvement in confidence was also identified by secondary age pupils. A group of S3 pupils in Torrfield HS said that they appreciated involvement in PDPs commenting that it was 'good' and 'it helps you set targets.' Members said that the PDP process 'makes you feel more important' and 'you feel like you're getting more attention.' They also said that 'you need to work a lot harder and you get a lot more homework.' They generally approved because they felt they had a more accurate idea of what they could achieve - 'if they gie you a good mark you want to try really hard and get that.' In response to this, another pupil commented 'if they gie you a low mark you want to try really hard and try and do better.' However, they also agreed that getting a low grade could be 'quite depressing' - 'you might just gie up.'

It is notable that this group of S3 pupils commented, unsolicited, that a systematic planning approach would have been helpful in the first two years of secondary schooling, particularly in S2, 'because that's when you have to pick all your subjects.' Generally they thought that S1 and S2 were not very important in school, particularly S1, but that S3 and S4 were very important. They thought S2 was more important than S1 because it determined what classes you would go into for Standard Grades. S1 was just a starter and coming from primary you were 'at the very bottom of the thing.' The group was vocal about their experiences in S1, saying that 'you got to muck about' and the work was 'too easy.' They thought it was 'just to make you feel at ease' and that there was 'more concentration on settling in rather than on work.' This more purposeful emphasis only came in S2.

This contrasts with views at Kanmay HS where an S2 pupil commented

'Ah think it should be fur people higher up the school…like Standard Grade…cos in first and second year yer jist getting introduced…you don't know anythin' about settin' targets fur later on stuff…yer just tryin' tae settle in.'
(Kanmay HS S2 pupil)

Here too, pupils welcomed increased dialogue with teachers.

In two secondary schools, pupils commented that, without sufficient discussion with teachers, some of their peers might aim too low:

'You've got a couple that have a test…they find the classes too hard…theve actually got into the class…they should actually be proud of that…like in the test they just want to get…like they actually got into the top maths group, but half of them, like try to fail cos they will get put down classes…it's no really helping them.'
(Kanmay HS S2 pupil)

This was also a concern for principal teachers of Maths and English in Torrfield HS and for the headteacher of Longside PS. She wanted to make sure that the PLP was a fair reflection of the children's attainment - for example, there might not be sufficient statements of targets and actions; and there might be expectations that were too low for able children. She was looking for 'a good effort and clear and honest statements.' One of her main concerns remained - 'how do we get the time for dialogue?'

In schools where learning outcomes, as opposed to grades or levels, were used, both teachers and pupils and pupils found the target setting element useful in relation to national tests. In relation to national tests, children in Longside PS expressed some apprehension:

• 'nervous'
• 'sometimes sad'
• 'not too sure to start with but then happier after you've done it when you see how you've got on.'
• 'a little nervous'
• 'they might be hard but then they turn out okay.'

(Longside PS, P7 pupils)

Continuing in this less enthusiastic vein, pupils in schools where plans covered the whole curriculum tended to complain of the repetitious nature of the planning exercise. In Longside PS one child spoke about 'more targets and more targets.' Secondary pupils generally were more sanguine about this aspect.

Primary school pupils found it challenging to look at learning outcomes and specify targets within these.

• 'they're hard ….because you've got to do it every year.'
• 'you've got to think a lot….'
• 'it's hard because if you don't think about it you don't know what you're going to do.'

(Longside PS, P4-6 Pupils)

Indeed the Primary 4 teacher doubted that the task was within the capability of primary 4 pupils. The composite nature of the class raised difficulties in the organisation of the work. She said that PLPs 'can't be done with full class input.' She thought that children at this stage particularly needed considerable input to understand the different areas of the curriculum. She was not convinced that this was viable, given the time available. It was certainly difficult to cover all curriculum areas, especially when there was overlap in both her own mind and in 'their mind.' (Longside PS)

Almost all teachers identified increased enthusiasm and motivation, at least initially, on the part of pupils. However, it is striking that no improvements in attainment were discerned at either group or individual level. Generally, teachers were not willing to say that such changes could be identified over the relatively short timescale of the project. This was particularly the case when only a limited number of curriculum areas was tackled in a specific block of time.

Turning to personal development goals (in, for example, the areas of health improvement and personal relationships) there is conflicting evidence. In response to a prompt if the planning process was related only to subjects, 'aye' was the consensual response from S3 pupils in Torrfield HS. One pupil said that 'it was nothing tae dae wi outside schools.' Another said 'it's jist how you're gonae dae in yer subjects really.'

In relation to in-school discussion of activities that they did outside school, prompted with music, sport and clubs, the same pupils said this would really have nothing to do with school - 'not something you'd discuss with teachers.' They said that teachers 'jist wanted to do their subjects… they're here for teaching you…because if you go to football it's up to the trainer to decide what you should be doing.' They were generally quite adamant that life outside the school and life inside the school were not connected. Consultation with school staff beyond the examinable curriculum seemed to be reserved for worrying situations, if at all - one pupil said 'but if you really needed to talk to them for problems outside school then you would.' They said that for problems they would go to their 'Guidance Teacher, their Learning Support teacher, their Head of Year and their parents.' They seemed to be agreed that 'you have your school life and your other life.' (Torrfield HS, S3 pupils)

The views of the social education teacher, who led the four strands not connected to the examinable curriculum, contrast with the views of this group of pupils:

'Researcher: Do you think children are aware of any benefits of this process?

Torrfield HS, Social Education teacher: I think they are……in S.E. the way we glean it from them is that they are learning things they don't know and by setting them targets they say 'okay I am committing now to change and this is how I am going to commit.' I think they take a lot from it.'

In Kanmay HS, too, pupils largely saw PLPs as dominated by 'targets' and 'subjects.' However one pupil in the focus group did identify a personal learning goal from his plan: '...something that you know you are not good at, like…wan got us working on ma people skills'. This pupil demonstrated a clearer understanding about the personal and social dimensions to learning:

'Ah know I've got strong ideas n'that, an I've got to learn tae take other people's ideas on board.' (Kanmay HS, S2 pupil)

However, the consensus was that the purpose of the PLP was target setting.

It is interesting to note that while primary-age pupils generally welcomed the inclusion of 'extra-curricular' themes and the setting of personal goals, secondary-age pupils were more circumspect about this. In the case studies based on secondary schools, pupils considered the main focus of PLPs to be target-setting within the curriculum. Life outside school was separate from life inside school unless a serious problem was encountered, when guidance staff could be consulted.

3.5 Impact for Teachers

Many teachers mentioned that involvement with the PLP process had sharpened the 'focus' of their own planning. At the most elementary level target setting could identify areas of weakness at both individual and class level; and teaching approaches could consequently be adapted. This approach was more prevalent in primary schools where learning outcomes formed the basis of the curricular elements of the plan:

'It ties in very much with my approach to forward planning …. I always did like to share this; now it makes it more specific and focused…. It allows children to focus on something they want to do ….' (Longside PS, P7 teacher)

In Longside PS, while the P4 class teacher had reservations about the value of the process for her pupils, she was appreciative of the personal benefits: 'it makes you go back and think about your targets and your forward plans.' It made her ask 'what have I highlighted, what are they really ready to be doing?' She could not say that it had affected her relationship with the children in any particular way.

Concerning the impact on staff, the headteacher thought that 'it made teachers have to think about the learning outcomes.' Staff were more focused on the purposes of what they wanted the children to know. It reinforced messages about learning and teaching. One of the key messages was 'to be clear about purposes and share them with the children. …..How will the children know if they have succeeded unless you give them the criteria?' (Longside PS, Headteacher)

As yet, the school had carried out no formal or systematic evaluation of this work with teachers or pupils but staff were 'comfortable…it's manageable…and they know it's inevitable.'
(Longside PS, Headteacher)

The most notable impact on pedagogy had occurred in Jenner PS where preparation for PLPs had focused on training children to devise success criteria and to evaluate their own and their peers' work against these. For both teacher and pupils this had been a significant learning experience. The teacher's personal diary is suffused with the pleasure of finding an increasingly effective approach to bringing about real learning for her pupils. While the development of pedagogy is not equivalent to personal learning planning, this episode demonstrates the importance of formative assessment principles in preparing both pupils and teachers to take part in the self-evaluation and planning processes.

Several teachers, drawn from both primary and secondary sectors, emphasised the primacy of staff development in formative assessment practice as a prerequisite for involvement in the PLP process.

A number of teachers raised concerns about the appropriate development of the PLP process for lower- attaining pupils and for those with behavioural difficulties. The nature of the PLP development exercise meant that most schools restricted the numbers and stages of pupils involved. Process and procedure was therefore not being tested with pupils representing the full range of intellectual, social and emotional attributes. While many school managers had made attempts to align IEPs with personal planning, there remain large numbers of pupils who require increased support for the planning process. In Torrfield HS the teacher of Maths thought that it was not feasible to carry out personal planning with all classes in the current resourcing situation. The process of review and target setting was much more demanding with 'less able' classes. He used one class in S1 as an example with approximately 22 pupils achieving around level D and another seven or eight achieving around levels C and B. This latter group of pupils was helped by a learning support teacher who undertook the target setting and review process with them.

There were a number of classes in Torrfield HS where personal planning could not happen at all because of the poor behaviour and motivation of pupils. The Maths teacher spoke several times about the difficulties of carrying out such work with challenging pupils and the need for more resources, both in terms of staff development and extra staffing for undertaking this. To date, the personal planning exercise had been carried out with selected classes and much of the resource had been spent on the production of materials, rather than on any enhancement of staffing.

One lower-attaining pupil in Kanmay HS said 'ah just filt it in frae ma mid term report'.

One primary school found it difficult to align an IEP with a PLP. There were at present no pupils with Records of Needs or Care Plans attending the school. One pupil with dyslexia currently had an IEP with targets set specifically in language. There had so far been no attempt to merge the IEP with the pupil's PLP. The reason given was that this was 'an issue of self esteem.' Although it was recognised that a PLP could have the same targets as an IEP, it was not clear whether the IEP targets had been discussed with the pupil, who was in fact unaware that he had an IEP. This was considered desirable for the sake of the pupil's self esteem. This stance raises crucial issues about the nature and purpose of record-keeping; and the extent to which all young people might be involved in personal review and planning. It also raises issues about the assessment philosophy underlying the constitution of the IEP. The approach in Willow PS contrasts strongly with Longside PS's more consultative strategy. Overall parameters and targets had to be guided by the teacher's knowledge of the child. Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for children with special needs were an exception to this, where discussion with parents took place at the target-setting stage. These plans concentrated largely on language and Maths. IEPs drew upon children's PLP targets in these areas.

3.6 Confidentiality

The issue of confidentiality is important for PLPs, especially in the personal development area. In Sandpiper HS where the personal planning process involved self-assessment in relation to values, the associated documentation remained confidential to the pupil. The front page of pupil's review document stated that access by parents or teachers relied on pupil consent. The researcher was unable to see any of the pupil plans, even on the conventional, anonymised basis. While the sensitivity of personal information is fully recognised, such a degree of confidentiality raises issues about the value of the process within the school and home context. Partly by contrast, Torrfield HS's approach was to preserve some degree of confidentiality by allowing pupils to choose what goals were transcribed from their main plan into homework diaries. These were designed to be reviewed by teachers and formed the basis of home school communication in relation to the planning process. A member of staff had been concerned about the right balance between preserving confidentiality and supporting a pupil in relation stopping smoking and drinking. She decided that it was more important to support that goal than to insist on the involvement of parents. Her criterion for this decision was that there were no issues of child protection. This example demonstrates the importance of training in the areas of counselling and child protection. It also underlines the necessity for school managers to consider such issues in the early PLP design stages and to provide consistent guidance for staff; and general information for parents and pupils.

Additionally, concern about these kinds of issues and the overall sensitivity of personal planning contributed to decisions about the focus of work in this domain. For example, in one school it had been decided that pupils would not self-assess in social, personal and emotional areas. Rather, they would identify relevant curricular topics about which they wanted to know more. This could be seen as tending towards curriculum based planning, rather than personal development planning.

3.7 Models of Delivery for PLPs

A number of possible dimensions against which PLPs can be categorised have emerged from this evaluation. These have been drawn from the detail of ten case studies and from desk study of documentation in all 32 schools involved in the project. Most systems of categorisation have a degree of overlap and interaction. This is inevitable, particularly as schools have had considerable freedom in designing PLPs and there is consequently great variety in strategy and practice. With further refinement, it would be hoped that each school's approach might be located on each dimension, thus helping to explore the relationship between different kinds of practice and their outcomes.

Two schools stand out from the framework of dimensions. The central feature of Sandpiper HS's approach was to support pupils through a highly individualised process of self-assessment and evaluation, mainly in the area of personal values - there was no direct curriculum-based or personal planning element in this exercise. Curriculum-based target-setting was routinely carried out in school on a separate and pre-existing basis. In Jenner PS the schools efforts within the parameters of PLP had been devoted to the development of enhanced teaching strategies where pupils developed self-evaluation skills related to particular aspects of the curriculum.

DELIVERY

Class organisation

Individual

The concept of Delivery describes approaches to the initial stage of determining achievement with young people. (It excludes any introductory activities or explication from the teacher. Usually these are conducted on a class basis.) Discussion and negotiation of current levels of achievement may vary. For example, in Torrfield HS in Maths, this was done on a class basis, pupils being streamed according to their predicted Standard Grade achievement. Pupils completed a target sheet towards the end of April 2003, looking towards the national test at the end of the year. This was largely carried out as a class lesson, taking 15-20 minutes. While the assignation of predicted level of achievement was done on a class basis, pupils were expected to assess evidence from their recent work and thereby identify areas on which they needed to concentrate. The planning process therefore moved from the communal to the individual, through the identification of personalised actions.

In Longside PS the technique was similar - all pupils in the class were required to note the curriculum areas being covered in each term. Individualisation occurred as each pupil identified a particular activity/topic on which they wish to concentrate.

PERSONALISATION

Class

Individual

Personalisation is the degree to which the plan is customised to individual needs. At the top end of the dimension are found plans such as that from Willow PS where choice in curriculum area, personal development area and the associated targets meant that each plan was entirely individual. This contrasts with the plan from Longside PS where the curriculum template for each pupil stayed constant with customisation entering only through the pupil's selection of a particular area as of special interest.

In both Torrfield HS and Longside PS delivery was at the class level, the identification of next steps progressed to the level of individualisation. By contrast, pupils in Willow PS and Plover PS were encouraged to select, in consultation with their parents, a particular area of the 5-14 curriculum on which to work. This was followed up by discussion with the class teacher and negotiation of associated, individualised learning outcomes. Therefore each pupil's plan was entirely individualised from the start. It is interesting to note that the school management decided in reviewing this development work that such a degree of flexibility was not sustainable. They subsequently decided that the model of delivery would be restricted - 'Teachers will choose group targets in the curriculum section.' (School report to LTS)

NEGOTIATION

Prescribed

Negotiated

Negotiation describes the extent to which there is a process of discussion and resolution between pupil and teacher/mentor. Negotiation could be embedded at every stage of the planning process; at a particular level, for example, in the choosing of individualised targets within a wider given template; or not at all. Using this concept or dimension causes interesting patterns to emerge. For example, in Willow PS, although there is pupil choice in the curriculum area to be tracked each term, it is meant to be achieved through negotiation between parent/carer and pupil, rather than with the teacher. Subsequently, decision- making about particular learning outcomes within that curriculum choice was subject to negotiation between teacher and pupil only.

In Torrfield HS there was limited room for negotiation. The PLP framework was comprehensive both in relation to curriculum and personal development. The pupil was expected to engage with each area. Small amounts of negotiation could take place in relation to setting Standard Grade levels; and actions to achieve these were determined largely by the pupil. In the personal development area, choice of themes to concentrate on was achieved by self-evaluation; and group and paired discussion amongst pupils.

BALANCE

Curriculum Based

Personal Development Based

Balance relates to the proportions of planning activity devoted to curriculum and personal development. In Longside PS the plan is largely devoted to the curriculum with one 'extra curricular' heading for out of school activity as opposed to personal development - my interests out of school, what I do, where and when I do this and what skills I am learning/want to learn. In Torrfield HS, four of the PLP's five strands related to aspects of personal development:

• Attendance, punctuality and behaviour
• Health and well-being
• School life
• Out of school life.

While it may seem that more attention is paid to personal development than curriculum-based issues. The fifth strand of subject attainment breaks down into seven or eight divisions, according to the pupils Standard Grade curriculum choices. Therefore the coverage is comprehensive, with a roughly equal balance of curriculum and personal development targets.

SCHEDULING

Continuous Review

Long-term Review

Scheduling refers to the time interval between setting targets, learning outcomes or personal goals and reviewing progress towards these. The longest interval between reviews was termly. Some staff, conscious of the need for closer monitoring, carried out informal and interim reviews, according to pupil needs. Many staff commented that review needed to be fairly frequent to sustain pupils' interest and enthusiasm. Separate learning diaries/logs were sometime used to introduce more frequent review. The extent of their articulation with the PLP was variable.

CURRICULUM COVERAGE

Comprehensive

Specific Focus

Curriculum Coverage refers to the extent to which the PLP spans the curriculum. For example, in Torrfield HS (S3) and Longside PS (P7) almost the whole assessable curriculum was covered in the course of the pilot period. In some other schools, one curricular area, such as language was selected with two or three relevant outcomes. In the case of Jenner PS, the coverage was linked and highly specific, covering the construction of line graphs and scientific report writing. The idea of the phased introduction of different skills and curriculum outcomes is also relevant to both curriculum coverage and scheduling. The fairly short time-scale of the pilot study limited full exploration of how PLPs might incorporate such incremental approaches.

SPECIFIED OUTCOMES

Broad Targets

Detailed Learning Outcomes

Specified Outcomes relates to the degree of detail in the goals set for, or by, pupils. These might be broad targets such as Standard Grade or 5-14 levels or more specific learning outcomes drawn from the curriculum, such as learn to display information in a graphical form. In the field of personal development, outcomes might be broad, such as, to improve my health moving to the specific, such as, eat more vegetables'.

SELF-EVALUATION

Teacher Led Evaluation

Pupil Led Evaluation

Self-Evaluation describes the extent to which planning and review incorporates input from young people themselves. Evaluation may be fairly functional, based on teacher judgements; explanatory but still based on teacher judgement; or may support the pupil in devising criteria for success and applying these.

REVIEW

Basic Mentor-pupil interaction

Significant Mentor-pupil interaction

Review relates to the quality of the process of revising goals to make judgements about progress. Pupils may be fairly autonomous in this, especially where PLPs are easily accessible and flexibility allowed in their update. The availability of computers with pupils' PLPs onboard was helpful in this respect. Also important is the amount of pupil/teacher interaction within the review process. Another factor is the quality of initial goals and actions in facilitating achievable targets and meaningful review.

RECORD-KEEPING

Paper-based Single Case

IT-based Multiple Case

Record Keeping refers to the media used and degree of collation of data from PLPs. Generally it was useful for young people and teachers to be able to access IT versions of their PLPs. This was also useful if copies were needed at short notice for parents or school managers. Although none of the case study schools had formally collated data from PLPs, several teachers found it useful to scan them when planning teaching.

3.8 The Use of IT

Some aspects of IT usage were favourably commented on by staff in a number of schools. All case studies schools had started with paper-based approaches and those which switched to computer-based work reported considerable improvement in the management of the process. This simple switch prevented loss of single-copy paper based PLPs. If access to computers was freely available this helped in the regular updating of the plans. Such accessibility was further enhanced by developing web-based approaches, as in Plover PS. However, when such resourcing was not in place, considerable frustration was experienced by both staff and pupils.

Jenner PS and Kanmay HS had used a pre-existing computer package (PICASSO) to support planning. This had originally been designed to support transition between primary and secondary school. It had several other components in addition to a target setting element. The primary school had devoted much attention to training children in self-evaluation prior to use of the computer based target setting approach and found it relatively successful with pupils. However, it was seen as somewhat restrictive in its inappropriate language and in its limited range of 5-14 levels and learning outcomes. The primary 7 teacher also thought that it had not been entirely helpful to move from the pedagogical approaches developed in building pupils' self-evaluation skills to a more mechanistic system of target setting with a prescribed set of learning outcomes:

'I did not want to say that this is not a level D report to them, I wanted to show them what was wrong with the report and how they could improve their own work. I wanted to improve…their self assessment, NOT saying that's level C but it's not level D'. (Jenner PS, Teacher)

Several teachers using computers cautioned that it was important to ensure sufficient time for individual discussion. The automation of some of the PLP process, they thought, made it easier for pupils to proceed unaided.

In summary, it can be said that the use of IT approaches in the PLP development work is fairly elementary. Several school managers and a number of local authority staff believed that, for PLPs to be successful on a large scale, they would have to be incorporated in coherent record-keeping systems at class and school level.

3.9 Interface with other Reporting Systems

Many school managers emphasised the importance of ensuring that PLPs did not take second place when reporting to parents was required. For example, in Longside PS personal planning was supported until the final term when the standard report to parents required staff attention.

Teachers felt that there was considerable duplication across various forms of record keeping and reporting, especially if they already used target-setting systems. Existing MIS or target setting systems were variably useful in the personal planning domain but none was entirely satisfactory. Schools mentioned CMIS, PICASSO, PISCES and CLICK AND GO.

3.10 Parent Participation

In the secondary school case studies, parental contact had been largely limited to information-giving about the PLP projects generally; and to the receipt of information accruing from the planning process. In Torrfield HS, for example, parents had been informed of the health development aspects of personal planning in particular. They were also invited to sign the homework diaries which contained information about the achievement of learning outcomes or targets. In the other secondary schools the parental element was smaller.

In primary schools however the situation was more varied. In one primary school it had been intended that parents and children together would select curricular areas in which to focus. In all case study primary schools there had been a policy aim to increase parental engagement, mainly by providing more detailed and sometimes more frequent information. The ambitious scheme in Willow PS was to engage parents in the selection of targets with their children.

Throughout the primary sector parental response to PLPs had been very favourable. Longside PS had carried out two rounds of evaluation with parents and the categorisation of parent comments below is typical of other schools:

• an increase in the amount and quality of information about children's activities
• information about rates of progress
• the generation of a more productive relationship between parent and child concerning school work
• good detail about children's strengths and areas of weakness
• the opportunity to be able to provide more targeted help at home
• useful preparation for discussion at parents' nights
• greater insight into one's child's hope and aspirations
• appreciation of an increasingly independent role for the child in reviewing progress and setting goals
• information on national tests
• the opportunity to review a range of the child's work and to see progress in this
• the likelihood that the plan would support the growth of independence, confidence and pride in work
• the sense of change and progress that children themselves would have
• the accessibility, clarity and simplicity of the PLP format
• encouragement for parents about their child's progress - feelings of being positively involved.

The small amount of negative comment related to

• insufficient information and explanation of national test procedures and results
• a concern that the process might be stressful for children, with undue amounts of pressure to achieve
• the need to recognise the effects of specific difficulties (such as dyslexia and dyspraxia) on progress
• a need for further dialogue with parents to ensure real partnership.

Several primaries noted, however, that it was difficult to sustain initial levels of parent enthusiasm.

Across the ten case studies, the most remarkable example of parental involvement in the personal planning process comes from the nursery sector. Auckland NS began to develop PLPs as part of its involvement with the NCS initiative. From the beginning, consulting with parents was a major feature of planning and trialing. The aim of the project itself had been to promote and sustain parental involvement in the writing and review of their child's personal learning plan (School report to LTS). Throughout these consultations, the headteacher had emphasised the forward- looking aspect of the plan - NOTa record of their progress. At the beginning of the nursery year each parent was asked to set one target for their child. This later became a 'wish,' for example

'to learn, develop and mostly enjoy'
'to continue to develop his social skills' (Auckland NS, parents)

Through ongoing discussion with teachers, parents became increasingly aware of the types of target or 'wishes' appropriate for pre-school children, veering away from targets such as 'to learn to read and write:'

'They learned a lot about the nursery because that was our opportunity to push the curriculum, what we were about, and it was just wonderful. They all set new targets for their children and it has just been really, really good.' (Auckland NS Headteacher)

The personal learning plan with its six broad curriculum headings was completed by nursery staff over a six-week period and reviewed with parents. The head teacher was persistent in making a personal appointment with each parent. The close observation of children and the consequent accurate picture in the plan delighted parents - 'this is my child to a T' and helped them to formulate the next 'wish'. There was positive feedback to all involved - teacher, nursery nurse, parent and child. The retrospective reports had been converted to personal plans for future development for the benefit of all:

'I think once they (other staff) started it, they realised the advantages of meeting all your parents on a one to one. Who else has that advantage - nobody. It is absolutely brilliant. I think once they got the feedback from the parents - it makes you feel so good. The parents love it when you tell them things, it does make you feel really good that we are seeing the same child and it is good and worth it.' (Auckland NS Headteacher)

Parents appreciated both this positive process and its scheduling.

'Their (parents') words were that "it was a two way process - you are identifying things that my child has not yet achieved, if I know that mid-year then I can do something about it at home".' (Auckland NS Headteacher)

The seeking of individual information about each child had resulted in an expansion of the nursery curriculum categories to include 'community:'

'I think our links with the community have probably changed ….this wee one very rarely spoke, but, when we did planting, he was in his element - he knew all about the roots and everything…..that was because his grandfather was in a gardening club and actually takes the wee one with him. If I had never had that meeting with those parents I would probably never have found that out. Because we knew that was a great interest in that child we implemented that in all the other areas of the curriculum for him. …We got in contact with (Wildlife centre) ….they came along and did a talk…... It has helped us integrated into the community more….' (Auckland NS Headteacher)

There were rare examples of the incorporation of rights and responsibilities within PLPs. Plover PS's plan featured a list of pupil rights and responsibilities and some of the pupil activities focused on this. The introduction to Torrfield HS's PLP also emphasised these issues.

3.11 Workload and Resources

All but one of the primary case study schools had brought in cover staff using project grant. This was used to cope with development work and particularly for consultation with pupils, as part of the planning process. This latter aspect was perhaps the most marked concern about the sustainability of the work. Introductory sessions for children could be covered on a class teaching basis. However, the one-to-one discussion, which they considered essential, required extra staffing resources, obviously increasing as the frequency of consultation grew. The headteacher of the single primary school where cover was not used had decided to replicate circumstances beyond the pump-priming of the pilot project. While her project was considered successful and sustainable , it is significant that, in this school, the level of consultation with pupils was relatively low and the personal learning plans considerably more prescriptive than in the other primary schools.

The PLP process tended to eat into parts of the curriculum. For example in Longside PS a few children complained about their IT period being subsumed into personal planning. In Jenner PS some of the work was carried out after school hours.

In secondary schools, general design and planning of the PLP template itself and associated processes took up large amounts of management time. Work with secondary pupils themselves tended to be carried out either within the PSD curriculum (Torrfield HS) or in the class of the teacher with special responsibility for developing the PLP programme (Chemistry in Kanmay HS). In Torrfield HS the subject teachers interviewed considered that the model of PLP being developed did not have significant workload implications. The largest time element was used for discussion of personal goals with the PSD teacher and this fitted largely into the allocated time for this aspect of the curriculum. Some of the briefing for pupils was carried out as part of a year-group assembly.

Both a number of teachers and pupils were in favour of comment banks as helpful in reducing the time spent in target setting and review.

The headteacher of the single, case-study nursery school identified the importance of appropriate day-to-day pedagogy in reducing any extra workload; and also the creative use of different recording media with such young children:

'….we have so much of this in place already, we have two opportunities a day to speak to children in small group situations 1-10 and what we are looking at is splitting the group to 1-5….. It is not going to be a big issue because it is something we already plan in the nursery…. We have group time and we have circle time so it's very much what is in place…..I am hoping to tape record the children and take out of that what they are saying and what they are wanting to do.' (Auckland NS Headteacher)

No schools reported that they used extra resources to meet learning needs of pupils emerging as part of the PLP process. Rather, some relatively small amounts of grant had been used on material and administrative resources such as folders, card, lamination, photocopying and storage facilities.

3.12 Continuity and Transition

The short time-scale of the pilot period and the strongly developmental nature of the PLP work have precluded any substantial study of these aspects. Secondary schools in geographical clusters did make general use of PLP information, where available, from primary schools. However, across the ten case study schools there was no example of a PLP format being transferred from sector to sector in order to provide a continuous process for pupils. Auckland NS had carried out collegial development work in this respect with a primary school outside the remit of the evaluation. The headteacher of Auckland NS reported that this had been a mutually useful process for both schools.

The nursery school headteacher found the transition record for children moving on to primary, or to other pre-school placements, of limited use because it included only a checklist of achievement without the individualised, forward-planning element.

« Previous | Contents | Next »