Evaluation of the Assessment is for Learning Programme: Final Report and Appendices

Evaluation of the Assessment is for Learning Programme: Final Report and Appendices - February 2005

5. Findings (2) - Phase 2 surveys

5.1 Introduction

A second series of surveys was undertaken in September 2004. This included local authority assessment co-ordinators, higher education faculty representatives, headteachers and teachers in schools that had been part of the initial development projects, and local co-ordinators of Associated Schools Groups ( ASGs).

The findings are presented thematically across the groups of participants. Following a description of the samples, the themes are:

progress and developments during 2003 to 2004
impact on policy and practice
communication and collaboration
resources, funding and sustainability
development of a coherent and unified system of assessment.

The development of ASGs had taken place during the session 2003 to 2004 in order to take forward AifL developments within local authorities, focusing in particular on local clusters of schools. Although not part of the evaluation proposal, it was decided that it was important to gain insight into the progress of ASGs and the work they had been engaged in. The findings from the ASG survey are presented separately (section 5.8).

5.2 Survey samples

LA assessment co-ordinators and HE representatives

The purpose of the surveys of key players and schools was to review progress during 2003 to 2004, taking account of the increasing importance of the role of local authorities during that period. The questionnaire to local authority assessment co-ordinators addressed issues of the role of the assessment co-ordinators and changes to staffing, staff development, the impact of the programme at authority level, perceived benefits and challenges to authorities and schools, sustainability, issues of collaboration and communication, and the overall progress of the programme. The questionnaire to HE representatives addressed similar issues regarding the overall programme but focused on HE issues, in particular, the incorporation of AifL principles into HE programmes.

There had been changes to the LT Scotland development officers since the previous survey, many of the original DOs having gone back to teaching or to other posts. New development officers had been appointed in a range of roles to take forward the AifL Programme: for example, developing the Toolkit, ongoing dissemination and other events. It was decided that because of the change and variety of roles it would not be beneficial to include them in a survey.

Responses were received from 30 out of 32 authorities. Additionally, some authority representatives were interviewed. An interview was held with one of the co-ordinators who had not been able to complete the questionnaire, and therefore the views of 31 authorities have been included in the report.

Responses were received from 8 HE representatives, all of whom had completed the initial survey in May 2003.

School survey of headteachers and teachers

The school survey investigated the extent to which original developments had continued to progress within schools, aspects of other projects which were developing within the schools, issues of staff development and support, ongoing benefits and challenges of AifL, the meeting of information needs, awareness and understanding of the wider programme and its overall progress.

Questionnaires were sent to 165 schools. This was based on a revision of the original database used in 2003. Some schools were removed as they had not actually taken part and a few schools that had started later were added. All Project 1 schools were included in this survey.

Completed questionnaires were returned from a total of 87 schools (53%). Schools were represented as follows:

53 both senior management and teacher responses
24 management-only responses
10 teacher-only responses.

The explanations for the management-only responses were that, in 15 cases, no other teacher had been involved because it was a small school or because of the nature of the project (Projects 3 and 8); in other cases the teacher(s) had left or were too busy; in 5 cases no explanation was given. In the teacher-only responses, explanations included the headteacher leaving or being on secondment.

The non-return of questionnaires was followed up and 54 explanations (33% of target list) were received. These included:

18 who indicated that they had no time or were unwilling to complete the questionnaire for a number of reasons, eg HMIE inspection, work situations or too many external requests of this type
14 who reported that the headteacher or staff involved in the project had left, retired or were on long-term sick leave and, therefore, there were no further developments or the new headteacher was not in a position to complete the questionnaire; in one case the school had closed
12 indicated that no further AifL developments had taken place during 2003-04; one reported minimal involvement initially and no further work had taken place
10 cases where the questionnaires appeared to have gone adrift in the post, either not being received in the first place or not successfully returned to the research team.

It is not possible to know how many of the other non-respondents (24 schools) would give the same reasons but it is reasonable to speculate that they would be similar. It is noteworthy that 26 (16% of target list) indicated that for one reason or another no further developments had occurred.

The breakdown of responses by sector is given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Breakdown of responses to second AifL school survey by sector

Sector	No of schools in distribution	No of schools from which responses were received
Sector	No of schools in distribution	n	*% response*
Nursery and Primary	102	52	51
5-14/16	2	2	100
Secondary	54	28	52
Special	7	5	71
Total	165	87	53

This represents a similar level of response to the first survey from all but the nursery/primary sector, which is lower.

Each school was sent one questionnaire for completion by a member of the senior management team or by the person who had had management responsibility for AifL developments during the session 2003-2004. Schools were asked, where possible, to identify two teachers who had been involved from the very beginning and two who had become involved in developments during 2003-2004. The team were aware that this would not be possible in all schools; for example, where all teachers had been involved from the beginning or where there were fewer than 4 teachers. Therefore the AifL contacts were asked to distribute the questionnaires (4 per school) as appropriate to their context. Distribution and return of questionnaires by AifL project is given in Table 5.2

Table 5.2: Distribution and return of questionnaires in second AifL school survey by original AifL Project

Project	SMT			Teachers
Project	No. out	No. returned	*% return*	No. out	No. returned	*% return*
1. Formative assessment	44	26	59	176	56	32
2. Personal Learning Plans	16	7	44	64	13	20
3. Managing PLPs	14	6	43	56	4	7
4. Gathering and interpreting evidence	28	8	29	112	7	6
5. Local Moderation	16	5	31	64	9	14
8. ICT support	14	10	71	56	8	14
9. Reporting to parents etc	19	9	47	76	18	24
10. Special Needs/ ASN	14	6	43	56	15	27
Total	165	77	47	660	130	20

Compared to the first survey, lower responses were received from all projects except Project 1, where more were received, and Project 9, where the same number of responses were received. For Project 10 more management responses were received but fewer teachers; for Projects 2 and 8 there was only a small drop; however, for Projects 3, 4 and 5 there were considerably fewer responses. For Project 3, in the first survey, 12 headteachers and 35 teachers returned questionnaires; in the second survey this was 6 and 4 respectively; for Project 4 in the first survey the figures were 15 headteachers and 27 teachers, but in the second survey there were only 8 and 7 respectively; for Project 5 in the first survey there were 9 and 14 responses but in the second survey only 5 headteachers and 9 teachers responded. Several of the Project 3 and 4 schools indicated that there had been no further developments during 2003 to 2004. In connection with Project 5, a local authority contact who had helped with the developments indicated that the schools were unwilling to complete the questionnaires due to lack of feedback on the original work they had done and submitted to LT Scotland.

Ninety-six (74%) of the teachers had been involved from the beginning of the programme and 27 (21%), representing 18 schools, had become involved during 2003-2004. (There were 7 missing responses to this question.)

The proportion of respondents from each project is given in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Projects represented by respondents in second AifL school survey

Project	Headteachers		Teacher
Project	n	%	n	%
Project 1: Formative Assessment	26	34	56	43
Project 2: Developing PLPs	7	9	13	10
Project 3: Managing PLPs	6	8	4	3
Project 4: Gathering Evidence	8	10	7	5
Project 5: Moderation	5	7	9	7
Project 8: ICT	10	13	8	6
Project 9: Reporting to parents	9	12	18	14
Project 10: Additional Support Needs	6	8	15	12

On the original list of schools involved in the programme, one-quarter were participating in Project 1, therefore, more returns from Project 1 might be anticipated. However, 34% headteacher responses and 43% teacher responses from Project 1 represents a bias towards Project 1. Given the small number of returns from other projects, it is not possible to look at the data on the basis of each project or to make safe comparisons between projects; where appropriate, comparisons will be made between Project 1 and non-Project 1 data.

Of the 130 teachers who responded, 73 (56%) were from primary schools, 44 (34%) from secondary schools, 9 (7%) from special schools and 4 (3%) from 5-14/16 schools. One-third of primary respondents had taken part in Project 1, but almost 60% of the secondary responses were from Project 1. For Projects 2 to 10, therefore, the majority of responses were from primary schools.

5.3 Progress and developments during 2003-2004

The AifL Programme action plan had identified that aspects of the programme would be introduced beyond the pilot schools from August 2003, with local authorities playing a major role in the developments. Questions in the surveys to all respondents focused on changes and developments during 2003 to 2004.

Local Authorities

Staffing

A key aspect within local authorities had been the increase in staff involved in the development and delivery of the programme.

At the time of the first survey in May 2003, it was noted that the majority of local authority assessment co-ordinators had wide-ranging responsibilities within their authorities, with few having a predominantly assessment remit. Some authorities had nominated senior staff to the role and they, therefore, had many other responsibilities. The variation in seniority and range of responsibility was reflected in the amount of time they estimated they spent on the AifL assessment co-ordinator role, which ranged from under 5% to around 50% of their time. At that time only one authority had appointed an assessment development officer whose main task was taking forward assessment developments and the AifL Programme.

In the 2004 survey, 14 authorities reported appointing additional development staff during 2003-2004, with a further 6 making such appointments for 2004-2005. The majority of these posts were secondments with time allocated to AifL developments varying between 15% and 100%. In those authorities, the co-ordinators holding a more senior management role estimated that they contributed, on average, around 15% of their time to AifL. The remaining 10 authority co-ordinators from whom responses were received indicated that no additional staff had been appointed; the amount of time they spent on AifL varied from 'tiny' to 50%.

The balance of activities between assessment co-ordinators and DOs, where appointed, varied between authorities. In 7 authorities it was reported that the co-ordinator had a strategic role only, with a focus on managing the finance and budget, developing and monitoring the AifL Action Plan, reporting to and advising others within the Education Service and attending national events. In those cases the DOs took responsibility for most of the operational aspects: for example, in-service developments, liaison with and support for schools, preparing materials, and wider dissemination of the programme to schools within the authority. In other authorities with more than one person appointed to take forward the AifL Programme, assessment co-ordinators took responsibility both for strategic planning and operational delivery. In some cases the DO had been appointed to undertake only specific aspects of the development: for example, 'co-ordinating the management of PLPs in a group of schools', 'project leader for Building Bridges', 'leading formative assessment developments'. In most cases, both the co-ordinator and the DO shared a range of activities. In the authorities where no additional support staff had been appointed, the assessment co-ordinators reported managing both strategic and operational aspects of the programme.

The description of the respective roles was supplied in response to an open-ended question. It is interesting to note certain issues which emerged as priorities, although it does not necessarily mean that these issues are limited only to those who mentioned them:

In 5 authorities integration of AifL principles with other initiatives was mentioned as a role of the co-ordinators and development officers. This was to ensure 'permeation across the curriculum'; it was described as 'joining-up', 'linking' and 'making connections'. This was also an important issue for two of the authorities interviewed. In one, advisory staff were identifying common issues across initiatives; in the other, every cluster had a teacher whose remit was to develop effective teaching: formative assessment had 'become the springboard' and this helped teachers engage with other initiatives.
The most frequently mentioned aspect of the AifL Programme was formative assessment (all respondents); in 5 authorities PLP developments were highlighted; 2 mentioned moderation and 3 made specific reference to giving advice on National Assessments.

Staff Development

An essential component of AifL is staff development related to assessment, as contained in the original aims of the programme. During the early phases of the programme this was provided primarily through LT Scotland and the project DOs. At the time of the first survey (May 2003), only 7 authorities reported having introduced staff development in connection with AifL beyond the pilot schools, with the majority reporting that this was being planned for 2003 to 2004. From 2003 on, while national events continued, local authorities took greater responsibility for staff development in AifL-related developments.

Respondents were asked to indicate what assessment-related development opportunities had been provided during 2003-04 and to indicate what impact they believed each type of event had had. Responses are given in Tables 5.4 and 5.5.

Six authorities had offered 3 of the following options; 12 had offered 4; 9 had offered 5 and 2 had offered all 6. Some additional activities were identified.

Table 5.4: Opportunities for assessment-related staff development offered by local authorities during 2003-2004

	No of authorities
Events using teaching staff involved in initial development projects	29
Events supported by LT Scotland development officers	20
Events provided by local authority officers	28
Events delivered by AifL HE Faculty Co-ordinators	2
Events with national experts (eg Shirley Clarke, Dylan Wiliam, Ian Smith)	21
Specific input to probationer training	26

Other staff development opportunities were also mentioned, including events for specific groups of people such as senior management teams, new PT curriculum posts and supply teachers; authority conferences and the development of authority websites (2 references).

Peer development and events delivered by national experts are seen to have the greatest impact, followed by local authority delivered staff development and input to probationer training.

Table 5.5: Views on the impact of each type of event ( LA co-ordinators)
Respondents were asked to rate them - 1 = high impact to 5 = no impact:

	High impact ? No impact
	1	2	3	4	5
Events using teaching staff involved in initial development projects	15	13	0	1	0
Events supported by LT Scotland development officers	5	9	4	0	0
Events provided by local authority officers	8	16	2	0	0
Events delivered by AifL HE Faculty Co-ordinators	1	1	0	0	0
Events with national experts (eg Shirley Clarke, Dylan Wiliam, Ian Smith)	12	7	2	0	0
Specific input to probationer training	5	16	3	1	0

Local authority respondents were asked to indicate how many schools in the authority had been represented at staff development events and how many staff had participated during 2003-2004. Figures are available for the number of schools that were represented at staff development events from 31 authorities and 28 gave figures for numbers of staff involved. These figures were compared with the data from the 2003 schools census to allow us to identify the proportion of school and staff who have participated. It should be noted, however, that in some cases the number of staff involved were estimates.

Overall, in these authorities, the percentage of schools represented at AifL staff development events during 2003-2004 was:

84% of primary/nursery schools
81% of secondary schools
63% of special schools.

Seventeen authorities reported that ALL primary schools had participated, with others reporting variations from over 80% to two reporting about one-fifth; 19 authorities reported ALL secondary schools being involved, with others indicating variations from 80% to as low as one out of 9 (11%). Five of the responding authorities do not have separate special school provision. Of those that do, 9 indicated that ALL special schools had taken part; others reported variations from 80% to none.

These figures suggest that across the country there has been high involvement of both primary and secondary schools but less of special schools, with more than half the authorities targeting all schools. However, not all staff in schools took part, so an understanding of the number of staff involved is important.

Overall, the percentage of staff taking part in staff development activities in the 28 authorities that were able to supply the information was:

41% in primary/nursery schools
20% in secondary schools
28% in special schools.

This varied from 100% of primary teachers in 2 authorities to 8% and 9% in two other authorities. One authority reported involvement of all secondary staff, whereas in 15 authorities the percentage of secondary teachers was in single figures. In special schools authority figures varied from all teachers in 2 authorities to none in 4 authorities.

Table 5.6 displays the figures for teacher participation.

Table 5.6: Proportion of staff involved in assessment staff development by sector

Percentage of staff participating	No of authorities
Percentage of staff participating	Primary/ nursery	Secondary	Special Needs
100%	2	1	2
80-99%	2	1	0
60-79%	3	0	1
40-59%	4	2	3
20-39%	11	8	4
0-19%	6	16	13
Total	28	28	23

The data collected did not indicate what kind of staff development each teacher took part in; this could vary from a half-day introduction to a series of in-service sessions which would provide more in-depth training, development and reflection. The figures indicate that some authorities were able to disseminate to larger numbers of teachers than others.

In about one-third of authorities more than 40% of primary teachers have been involved. However, in the majority of authorities fewer than 20% of secondary and special needs teachers have participated.

The views of headteachers and teachers from the original pilot schools on staff development are set out on page 84.

Associated Schools Groups

A major development of local authorities during 2003-2004 was to increase the number of schools involved in the programme, with a particular emphasis on members of Associated Schools Groups ( ASGs) working together. Local authority responses to questions about the ASG developments are reported in section 5.8 along with the findings from the ASG school survey.

Monitoring of programme

All authorities, except one, had local arrangements for monitoring AifL developments. Three layers of monitoring emerged: authority level quality assurance, AifL-specific reporting and informal monitoring:

Fourteen respondents stated that AifL issues were included within normal quality assurance procedures and would be monitored by Quality Improvement Officers/Education Officers/School Improvement Managers as part of their quality visits; progress would be monitored, for example, through school development plans and Standards and Quality Reports
Eighteen respondents identified AifL-specific monitoring: for example, assessment action plans, progress reports and case studies on developments, monitoring of budgets
Ten respondents mentioned that regular visits, meetings and liaison with schools provided the opportunity to monitor developments and engage in dialogue with practitioners.

Higher Education representatives

Involvement during 2003-2004

The respondents had spent varying amounts of time on the AifL Programme, ranging from 'very limited' to 'too many days to count'. One spent 6 days, two spent 10, one spent 12 and two spent 20 days. In addition to participation at HE representative meetings, involvement across the board covered attending conferences, undertaking research and evaluation, delivering CPD, informing colleagues and course development within their own institutions. The extent and range of involvement clearly varied according to the days available.

All had been involved in research related to the programme. Three were undertaking research which had no associated funding, 6 were involved in research which was funded through the AifL Programme and 3 identified further sources of funding, which in all cases came from faculty resources. The topics identified included investigations with learners, teachers, whole schools and trainee teachers: for example, learners' views of themselves as learners, investigations with teachers on change to their teaching, implementation of AifL within a school, resolving tensions between formative and summative assessment, BEd students' take-up of AifL as a development issue.

Four reported delivering CPD based on AifL. This included giving talks at practitioner CPD days and running workshops. Two respondents mentioned input to ITE, Chartered Teacher and other programmes.

Progress on issues identified for HE representatives within AifL

A range of issues was identified for the HE representatives' involvement in AifL. Respondents were asked to review a range of activities and indicate what progress they thought had been made during 2003-2004. Their responses are given in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7: Progress towards issues identified for HE representatives
(1 = not considered; 2 = discussion has taken place; 3 = some progress has been achieved; 4 = significant progress has been achieved)

		1	2	3	4
a)	Contributing to projects on the basis of research	0	3	4	1
b)	Demonstrating the relationship between research and practice	1	2	3	2
c)	Encouraging action research with practitioners	1	3	4	0
d)	Developing a community of practice jointly with practitioners and policy makers	1	3	4	0
e)	Collaborating with representatives from each Higher Education Institution	0	5	2	0
f)	Sharing information on the project/programme with key groups and individuals in your own organisation	1	2	3	2

Note: the selection of '1' was not all from one respondent - perceptions varied reflecting each individual's experience.

Collaboration between institutions appears to be the aspect where less progress was perceived to have been made, which reflects the views reported by HE representatives at the time of the first survey. The view was expressed that the climate of competition is still too great to develop a community of practice and also works against collaboration, though there was conviction that it needed to be pursued. One respondent indicated that he/she had not been used as a resource within their own department, while others were being used or were in the process of discussing it. One respondent indicated that agreement had been reached that an option module for the Chartered Teacher programme should be developed collaboratively with other HEIs.

A key aim for HEIs is to integrate AifL developments into Initial Teacher Education programmes. The HE representatives were asked about the extent to which AifL has led to changes in the pre-service teaching programmes in their institutions and to give some indication of how this had been introduced and what aspects.

Five indicated that it had contributed 'much', 2 'a little' and one 'not at all'. Six of the representatives indicated that they had responsibility for introducing AifL into ITE courses and 2 had advised others on this. One HE representative indicated that they had responsibility both for introducing AifL to some courses and for advising others with responsibility for other courses. The responses are summarised in Table 5.8. In some cases, the respondent gave information for their own courses and indicated that other people should be contacted for other courses.

Table 5.8: Aspects of AifL introduced into ITE courses

University	Course	How included	What included
A	PGCE (Primary)	Lecture input as part of module	Formative assessment strategies, work with parents, attainment significant but not complete modules. Other issues raised.
A	BEd - final year	School Experience students can chose as focus for professional development paper	As above
B	Concurrent degree	Lectures, seminars, modelled through feedback on written work, micro-teaching and placements.	Formative assessment strategies, relationship of formative and summative assessment
C	BEd - final year	Professional studies and task for School Experience	Formative strategies and national assessment (tests sic)
C	PGDE (secondary)	Lectures, workshops and assignment	Formative strategies and formative/summative relationship.
D	BEd - first year	Two lectures plus tutorials in Learning and Teaching module	Formative assessment strategies
D	BEd - final year	Lectures, workshops in Teaching and Learning module and language programme; Professional Studies module.	National Assessments; relationship of formative and summative.
D	PGDE (primary)	Professional Studies lectures and tutorials	Moderation issues, relationship with parents, PLPs, FA strategies, formative and summative relationship, National Assessments.
E	PGCE (secondary)	Lectures; online learning activities; website address on reading. Module 2 - Assessment	Formative assessment strategies; moderation.
E	PGCE (primary)	Assessed formatively; staff model use of development feedback; self and peer evaluation.	Lesson planning and assessment
E	BEd - first year	Ditto	As above
E	ASN	Effective Learning and Teaching module	Partnership issues; formative strategies; PLPs.
F	BEd	Lectures, student experiences, assignment	PLPs; links with parents.
F	PGCE (primary and secondary)	Lectures, assignment	-

One respondent indicated that they were currently auditing with course teams across the BEd programme to look at the extent to which AifL principles are already embedded into modules. The representatives also reported developments to include AifL in non-award bearing courses, Chartered Teacher and MEd modules.

Schools: headteachers and teachers

Expansion of original project developments

Findings from the survey completed in October 2003 and interview data indicated that many of the original developments involved only a few teachers in a school (in some cases, only one), selected pupils and selected aspects of the curriculum. Some involved parents, others did not. Respondents were asked to indicate if they had extended the work of the original developments during 2003-2004. Responses from headteachers are given in Table 5.9 and from teachers in 5.10.

Table 5.9: Aspects of original projects which were developed during 2003-2004 or were being planned (Headteachers)

	Yes		Not yet but planned		No plans		Not relevant		No response
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
More teachers in the school	47	61	12	16	6	8	4	5	8	10
More pupils in the same year groups	30	39	8	10	7	9	12	16	20	26
Additional stages/year groups	40	52	13	17	7	9	6	8	11	14
Other areas of the curriculum	28	36	14	18	11	14	8	10	16	21
Parents/more parents	19	25	21	27	10	13	4	5	23	30
(Secondary schools) More departments ¹	10	33	8	27	3	10	3	10	6	20

1. Percentage for secondary departments based on secondary, 5-14/16 and special schools with secondary sections.

Only 10 headteachers indicated that no further developments had taken place, nor were any planned, in relation to the original project work. Six out of the 10 had been involved in Project 8 and reported that no further developments were relevant. Two were involved with Project 4 and 2 with Project 3.

Table 5.10: Aspects of original projects which were developed during 2003-2004 or were being planned (Teachers)

	Yes		Not yet but planned		No plans		Not relevant		No response
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
More pupils in the same year groups	51	53	15	16	1	1	7	7	22	23
Additional stages/year groups	51	53	10	10	6	6	5	5	24	25
Other areas of the curriculum	48	50	6	6	8	8	8	8	26	27

Note: These responses are from the 96 teachers who were involved from the beginning and do not include those who joined developments during 2003-2004.

Expansion of original project work had occurred, or was still being planned, mainly through involving more teachers and additional year groups with teachers expanding to more pupils in the same year groups and into other areas of the curriculum. Thus, while local authorities were expanding the work into further schools, many of the original schools were continuing to progress within their own schools.

A higher proportion of Project 1 schools and teachers had extended the work, or were planning to, compared to non-Project 1 schools, with the exception of increasing involvement of parents (Table 5.11).

Table 5.11: Respondents having extended or planning to extend developments: comparison of Project 1 and non-Project 1 schools

	Headteachers		Teachers
	Project 1	Non-Project 1	Project 1	Non-Project 1
	%	%	%	%
More teachers in the school	92	69	Not asked
More pupils in the same year groups	65	41	87	56
Additional stages/year groups	81	63	85	49
Other areas of the curriculum	85	39	72	46
Parents/more parents	50	53	Not asked
(Secondary schools) More departments	100	64	Not asked

Respondents were asked to comment briefly on further developments that had occurred.

The majority of comments came from Project 1 participants - 14 headteachers and 27 teachers. Headteacher responses indicated, in half of the primary schools and the 5-14 school, that all teachers and all classes were using formative assessment strategies. Two commented that more teachers were involved and had attended training. Five of the secondary schools had provided whole-school in-service on formative assessment and teachers were adopting various strategies. One indicated that all departments were required to identify and adopt at least one formative assessment strategy. Ten of the primary teachers involved in Project 1 commented that they had initially focused on one aspect of the curriculum (for example, language comprehension, writing) but gradually introduced the strategies across all aspects of their teaching. One said 'it permeated itself'. Eight of the secondary teachers indicated that, having tried formative assessment strategies with a particular year group, they had introduced them into further year groups, including standard grade and higher classes. Five (both primary and secondary) said they had introduced the strategies to all classes and 2 primary teachers who had taken on new stages (eg moving from P6/7 to P1) were introducing them to their new classes. One reported that he/she had moved to a new school and would be introducing them there. Two spoke of introducing them to additional staff and two mentioned expanding their repertoire of strategies.

Only 5 headteachers and 4 teachers commented on ongoing developments from Projects 2 and 3. One headteacher indicated that staff changes had seriously affected progress; others mentioned making changes to their PLPs; only one mentioned increasing the number of pupils using PLPs, from some pupils to all pupils in a class. Teachers reported that changes included ongoing revision of the PLP format to include specific targets and more areas of the curriculum.

Five headteachers and 6 teachers commented on Projects 4 and 5, with the main emphasis on using the assessment formats developed (for example assessment rubrics) in other areas of the curriculum.

Six headteachers commented on Project 8, all indicating that they had not extended the work of Project 8 directly but that they had taken forward work either in PLPs or in formative assessment or both. One secondary reported developing improved reporting systems. One teacher reported that he/she had been working on a PLP computing programme.

From Project 9, 7 headteachers and 7 teachers reported that they were involving more year groups and were continuing to find ways of sharing more with parents or involving them more. One teacher stated: 'When reports are being written we now consult with our children about where they think they are and how well they think they are doing and what they could do to improve their learning. I try to assess more areas of the curriculum in consultation with the children' (Primary teacher).

Project 10 headteachers reported plans to involved more or all staff in their respective developments, be it formative assessment or reporting, and Project 10 teachers referred to adding further areas of the curriculum and involving more pupils.

Adoption of AifL-related aspects other than original project

All the projects are designed to work together to form a coherent system. The survey undertaken in October 2003 and later interviews identified that many schools were focused mainly on their own particular project. The questionnaire asked respondents to identify aspects of AifL, other than the main focus of their original project, which they had begun to develop during 2003 to 2004.

Twenty headteachers (26%) reported no new developments beyond the original project (11 primary, 8 secondary and one special school). Therefore 74% of respondents had gone beyond the original project and developed further aspects of the AifL Programme: 29 (38%) reported taking on board issues relevant to one other project, 19 (25%) reported developing aspects related to 2 other projects and 9 (12%) reported developing aspects related to 3 or more.

Table 5.12 below indicates the number of headteachers reporting developments beyond their original project.

Table 5.12: School developments in AifL project areas beyond original project (Headteachers)

	Primary	Secondary	5-14/16	Special	Total
	n	n	n	n	n
Project 1	19	6	1	1	27
Projects 2 and 3	11	4	0	1	16
Projects 4 and 5	6	2	1	0	9
Project 6	14	4	1	0	19
Project 7	2	2	0	0	4
Project 8	0	2	0	1	3
Project 9	7	0	0	0	7
Project 10	4	1	0	1	6

Note: Total column adds up to more than total number of schools in survey because of schools' development of more than one aspect.

The focus of developments in responding schools appears to be primarily formative assessment and PLPs. Fifty-one schools were not involved originally in Project 1 and therefore 53% of them had taken on board formative assessment. Sixty-four were not originally involved in Projects 2 or 3 and therefore 25% of them had moved on to PLP developments. Only 19 respondents referred to Project 6 at this point, but in a later question about National Assessments 62 (83%) reported using the New National Assessment Bank.

A parallel question in the teacher survey showed that teachers from 18 out of 37 schools not originally involved in Project 1 were now developing formative assessment, and that 10 out of 52 schools not initially developing PLPs had now taken this on board. Few schools were developing other aspects of the programme.

The findings on the expansion of original project work and the adopting of other aspects of the programme indicate that, during 2003 to 2004, the main focus of developments was formative assessment strategies. This confirms the findings from the local authority co-ordinators, all of whom referred to formative assessment as part of their authorities' developments. Commenting on the overall effectiveness of the programme, the HE representatives commented: 'Project 1 was seen as the area to be in' and this tended to devalue the hard work of those involved in other aspects such as PLPs and moderation: 'It might have been better to begin the programme with all participants working on the formative assessment area and grow the other areas from there'.

Case study schools

Many of the case study schools visited during early 2004 were beginning to develop formative assessment strategies. Three primary schools involved in project 4 were introducing formative assessment using the 'Black Box' materials. For one school an important influence was being paired with a Project 1 school for peer-evaluation. A primary school involved in Project 8 had been introduced to formative assessment at a local authority event in a Project 1 school. The headteacher and teachers emphasised that the greatest benefit of being part of AifL had been the early introduction to formative assessment which had led them to rethink both assessment policy and practice. Other Project 8 schools and some Project 9 schools reported taking part in in-service events with plans to introduce formative assessment more widely in the school during session 2004 to 2005.

Staff Development

Headteachers and teachers were asked which type of staff development they had participated in:

86% of headteachers and 84% of teachers reported peer-delivered staff development (in-school)
66% of headteachers and 52% of teachers had taken part in joint staff development with cluster schools
50% of headteachers and 48% of teachers had taken part in 'school-funded' staff development, eg courses, materials and guest speakers coming to the school
73% of headteachers and 60% of teachers reported taking part in local authority-delivered in-service, seminars and courses
43% of both headteachers and teachers had taken part in nationally-organised AifL activities.

Peer-delivered development and local authority staff development were the most frequently experienced and therefore were likely to have the greatest impact. This concurs with the views reported by local authority assessment co-ordinators. Lower proportions of secondary than primary teachers were involved in cluster developments (43%:63%) and in school-funded staff development (43%:52%).

Objectives developed and achieved

The responses to the survey in October 2003 showed that schools had a wide range of local objectives. These were summarised and in the 2004 survey respondents were asked to indicate which objectives they thought applied to their AifL activities and the extent to which they thought they had achieved them. The responses from headteachers and teachers are given in Tables 5.13 and 5.14.

Table 5.13: AifL objectives and extent to which they have been perceived as achieved (Headteachers)

Main focus of development	Number and percentage indicating this objective	Progress towards achieving objective (% of those selecting it)
Main focus of development	Number and percentage indicating this objective	not yet achieved	partially achieved	achieved
Teacher development (for example develop teachers' knowledge, skills, understanding, confidence)	67 (87%)	11	71	18
Pupil development (for example develop pupil knowledge and skills, develop confidence and self-esteem, improve learning, increase motivation)	63 (82%)	12	80	8
Assessment strategies (for example improve/ develop/introduce new approaches or methods of assessment)	67 (87%)	20	66	15
Assessment instruments (for example improve or develop new tests or techniques in testing; devise prompts for use in assessing)	47 (61%)	24	66	9
Self and peer assessment (particularly in relation to pupil learning)	64 (83%)	17	77	5
Involvement of parents (for example improve/ develop/introduce new ways of working with or reporting to parents)	58 (75%)	26	49	25
Use of technology (for example pilot/develop/improve use of IT - hardware, software, other equipment)	49 (64%)	32	53	15
Other school issues (for example improve record keeping, review management issues, improve transition)	43 (56%)	29	62	9

Table 5.14: AifL objectives and extent to which they have been perceived as achieved (Teachers)

Main focus of development	Number and percentage indicating this objective	Progress towards achieving objective (% of those selecting it)
Main focus of development	Number and percentage indicating this objective	not yet achieved	partially achieved	achieved
Personal and professional development (for example raising awareness; developing knowledge and understanding of assessment; improving practice of both teaching and assessment.)	124 (95%)	7	59	34
Pupil development (for example improving pupil skills; improving grades; raising attainment; involving pupils more in their learning; encouraging them to take more responsibility; helping pupils learn faster)	124 (95%)	10	64	26
Links with parents/carers (for example involving parents more; improving ways of working with parents; improving reporting to parents)	99 (76%)	32	40	29
Develop school procedures and practices (for example profiling, reporting, moderation of assessment; primary-secondary liaison)	88 (68%)	19	68	13
Self and peer assessment (particularly in relation to pupil learning)	110 (85%)	11	68	21
Use of technology (for example, piloting/developing/improving use of IT - hardware, software, other equipment)	86 (66%)	35	51	14

The main objectives related to staff and pupil development, with issues such as reporting, primary-secondary liaison, involving parents and using technology being recognised by fewer respondents, though remaining important. As in the first survey, a higher proportion of teachers than headteachers identified teacher development as an objective. Progress is being recorded in all areas, though the majority view appears to be that there is still considerable work to be done.

Other initiatives which interrelate with AifL

Twenty-six headteachers indicated that their schools were involved in other initiatives which interrelate with AifL. Ten mentioned aspects of other AifL projects: eg Project 8 schools now developing formative assessment, or Project 4 schools now developing PLPs and 2 involved in the Associated School Group developments. The other projects were wide-ranging: eg Building Bridges (4), Pupil Tracking (4), local authority initiatives (3), Critical Skills Training (2), National Priorities developments, PISA, an EU project on involving parents and Integrated Community School developments.

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Page updated: Wednesday, December 7, 2005

The Scottish Government

Publications

On this page: