Engagement in Education Ltd Free Flow Info: Final Report
July 2013
Contents: 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Page
Quotes from: a. Teachers b. Parents c. Pupils Executive Summary Background The Concept Quantitative Data Qualitative Data a. Schools b. The Management of Change c. Findings from the implementation of Free Flow Info d. Parental Attitudes e. Pupil Attitudes
1
2 3 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 13 19 21
1. Quotes from: a. Teachers The following comments were reported by teachers taking part in the proof of concept. On changes to teaching and learning 1. “ I now routinely use AfL, and a greater variety of AfL methods, within my daily teaching. The pupils even suggest that they upload their work so that it can form the basis of discussion for a small group or the whole class.” 2. “40% of parents added their own positive comments to the work that was sent home and used my feedback to follow up with the recommended next steps.”
3.
4. 5. 6.
Comparing FFI with the annual written report to parents. “Without doubt we can see that it is the way to go. The end-of-year reports have very little value both for teachers and the parents.” “The FFI method is a much more valuable process.” “I wish the school my own kids go to used Free Flow Info!” “I have an 18 year old and a 16 year old, and every year when I get their reports I flick through them and see page after page of impersonal comment...and I’m ashamed to say, I hardly read them – and I’m a teacher! And then I think....I spend hours, day after day, including most of my halfterm holiday, writing reports for the children in my class and I wonder, who reads them?”
Impact on pupils 7. “One very quiet girl started putting herself forward more in class as a result of being in the active group, and her mother commented on how delighted she was to see this change in her daughter’s behaviour”. 8. “ We set up 2 computers at the back of the class and attached scanners to both. The pupils just go and upload their own work. The problem is that pupils not in the active group started to upload their work as well so they could share the work with their parents! Can we just do the qualitative party of the proof of concept please?” Impact on parents 9. “40% of parents added their own positive comments to the work that was sent home and used my feedback to follow up with the recommended next steps.” Year 1 teacher in School A where parents were asked to volunteer, informed if they were in the active (work sent home online) or control group (no work sent home online) but were not given any other direction. 10. “ It’s good to share things with parents as they happen, including photos.” 11. “When word started getting around about what parents and pupils in the active group were sharing at home, one parent, who hadn’t even responded to the request for volunteers, asked if her child could join the active group. When we explained that the proof of concept was already well underway and that because of the assessments we’d been making it wasn’t possible
2
to add anyone to either group, she joined Edmodo on her own behalf so that they can load her child’s work up at home!”
b. What Parents Say The following comments were reported by parents taking part in the proof of concept and demonstrate the full range of benefits we hope to achieve by stimulating Parental Engagement. 1. 'Thankyou for doing this' In response to introducing a parent to FFI. 2. 'well done Jxxxxxxx' An unsolicited comment a particular parent had made on her son’s work using Edmodo. 3. 'We will follow up and practise his counting on in twos and fives' Response from parent regarding teacher feedback. 4. 'Hxxxxxx enjoys handwriting and spends time at home practising the joins' An unsolicited response from parents to inform their child’s teacher about attitudes to work at home that the teacher would not otherwise be aware of. 5. 'Sxxxxx likes to show us his work' Parents reporting on a change of pupil behaviour.
c. What Children Say The following comments were made exclusively by Year 1 and Year 2 pupils taking part in the proof of concept. Future studies could look in greater depth at the ways in which Free Flow Info methodology impacts upon the thought processes and attitudes of learners, but no one reading the following could fail to grasp the impact FFI has had on creating self-efficacy, self-regulation and meta-cognition through the development of motivation, creating an awareness of learning and a pride in achievement, and the importance of Parental and Family Engagement. 1. 'I think it’s cool because I’m learning' 2. 'I liked showing Mum and Dad my work' 3. 'It makes you feel fantastic' 4. 'Mum and Dad could write messages to school' 5. 'I could show my grown up sisters who are in the army my work' 6. 'Mum and Dad helped me make my work better' 7. 'My books fly home on the internet, it’s like magic'
3
2. Executive Summary
1. Free Flow Info methodology changes teacher behaviour by increasing the time spent on providing effective feedback, increasing the use of AfL, and provides a framework within which parents receive a regular flow of meaningful and timely information about what their children are doing in school. 2. 100% of the parents who received Free Flow Info material at home said that it gave them a better understanding of: a. the work their children were doing b. their children’s achievements c. the areas their children needed to improve d. how they as parents could support their children’s learning 3. 100% of teachers thought that Free Flow Info methodology would improve their effectiveness as teachers and their pupils’ effectiveness as learners. 4. 100% of the schools we approached to seek their willingness to take part in the proof of concept said they were prepared to do so.
5. Schools where the concept of FFI was fully embraced were able to use the strategy to structure classroom practice in such a way that regular feedback was given to pupils. 6. Pupils themselves were able to become strong advocates of this process, providing reinforcement through requests to receive feedback so that they could pass it on to their parents.
7. Without informing their teacher, pupils in the control group in one Year 6 class demonstrated self-regulation and self-efficacy by uploading their own work onto the learning platform, using it as a basis for group discussion. 8. 89% of the teachers of English who received the common training package reported positively about: a. the concept of Free Flow Info b. the quality of the training they received. 9. 89% of teachers said that Free Flow Info methodology would have a positive influence on the effectiveness of their feedback to pupils by changing the way they provided feedback. 10. The two areas they felt that would change most were: a. they would ensure that feedback actually provided guidance on what the pupil had done well and what was needed for improvement, 4
b. they would ensure that any comments were written in clear, unambiguous English so that parents who were not familiar with the educational process could understand how their children could progress. 11. Teachers from School B reported that since adopting the FFI methodology, they had found that: a. they used AfL activity more frequently in their lessons b. they used a greater range and variety of AfL activities in their lessons c. pupil engagement in AfL activity had taken on an integral and ‘organic’ role within their lessons 12. Free Flow Info methodology allows schools to ‘report to parents’ in a style that is accessible to parents from all social backgrounds and levels of educational experience.
3. Background 1. Previous reports have focused on the process of setting up the FFI project and the products that we have developed to enable adoption. This report serves to provide greater detail about the outcomes. 2. The Free Flow Info project is a short-term proof of concept study funded by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation as part of the Campaign for Learning’s pilot study for Mind The Gap. The £30,000 funding was secured by the Campaign for Learning, and without the support of both of these organisations this proof of concept would not have been possible. Their approach throughout has been exemplary, balancing the requirement of keeping a watching brief on QA that the responsibility for holding the finance for such projects naturally brings, with an enabling and trusting approach that has allowed us to maximise our outcomes by responding to changes as and when they occurred.
5
4. The Concept 1. From the day that we first managed to express the concept behind Free Flow Info, the response from school leaders, educationalists, academics and politicians, has been extraordinary and gratifying. The most frequently expressed themes being: a. its simplicity b. amazement that no one had thought of combining the strategies that define FFI before c. delight that at long last we have an obvious successor to the traditional system of reporting to parents that owes nothing to what has gone before but defines itself through established pedagogical theory which transforms the concept of reporting to parents from one that had very questionable outcomes and even fewer benefits, to one that has a strong and clear focus on the importance of learning and supports that process through the promotion of best classroom practice and by enabling meaningful Parental Engagement at home. 2. As a practitioner with over 35 years experience as a teacher and school leader, seconded to Becta in 2008 to lead the national implementation of Online Reporting to Parents in secondary schools, I was never truly at ease with the task I was charged with. As a first step it had its merits, and as an acknowledged and enthusiastic champion of Parental Engagement I could see an obvious opportunity to engage parents in the process of closing the Achievement Gap. 3. However, the Becta model failed to re-define what ‘reporting to parents’ should consist of and a confused logic emerged that said, ‘ if data is important to teachers, it must be important to parents’. This has resulted in the current trend that we encountered in School F, where under their new system of reporting to parents, all reports sent home to parents consist purely of grades or levels extracted from the school’s management information system.
4. One of the fundamental elements of Free Flow Info is that it can harness Parental Engagement as a means of raising pupil achievement and attainment by providing parents with a regular flow of timely and meaningful information which can form the basis of the ‘at home discussions’ we know make an impact on progress. We therefore see the move towards grade only reporting, especially in schools where pupils face high levels of disadvantage, as a retrograde step that is not only at odds with the findings on communication with parents in the DfE Parental Opinion Survey of 2010, but also the Ofsted Inspection Framework description of a ‘Good’ school where: The school works well with parents, including those who might find working with the school difficult, to achieve positive benefits for pupils.
5. An additional issue here relates to a possible change in Ofsted’s response to this practice. The 2007 DCSF publication ‘ Parental Involvement in Children’s Education 2007’,showed that the majority of parents preferred ‘informal’ communications from 6
school. This finding was repeated in the 2010 DfE Parental opinion Survey. This highlights the need for any reporting system to be ‘inclusive’, ensuring that it caters for those parents who experience difficulties understanding formally produced documents and data. Given that Ofsted is now looking for evidence that schools are working with all parents, “including those who might find working with the school difficult”, school leaders should perhaps be examining the extent to which ‘data only’ reports enhance their working practice with all parents. 6.
Free Flow Info methodology allows schools to ‘report to parents’ in a style that is accessible to parents from all social backgrounds and levels of educational experience.
7. Some products such as Edexel’s ResultsPlus, SAM Learning, and I Am Learning provide teachers with information about areas within the examination syllabus and the wider curriculum where their pupils had performed well, and those where they had not, allowing for personalised intervention in any pupil’s learning to be made. But by and large, we didn’t grasp the opportunity to use IT to change the way teachers do things in the classroom that improve pupil attainment, one consequence of this has been a growing cynicism amongst some teachers about the benefits of IT. We now know that Free Flow Info provides us with the opportunity to get things right. 8. Originally conceived in 2010 as a way to bring reporting to parents into the 21 st Century, Free Flow Info rapidly developed into something more, as the research demonstrated that its key elements – effective feedback, AfL and Parental Engagement – each had an important role to play in improving the attainment of pupils and especially of disadvantaged pupils.
9. The more people who are included in the FFI conversation, the greater its potential grows. An obvious example being the benefits it could bring to the KS2/3 transition process if the digital FFI folders containing key work from every pupil were transferred with the Common Transfer Document, improving upon the haphazard and contrived ‘transition units’ that we currently ‘use’. 10. As previously indicated, the enthusiastic response that we have received to the concept of FFI is driven mainly by the automatic recognition that FFI methodology has the potential to benefit everyone, especially pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Extensive research has already shown that Effective Feedback, Assessment for Learning, and Parental Engagement raise the attainment of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. To add, in a meaningful way, to this body of information given our £30,000 budget was not a realistic option. We thought it far more important to explore factors that could aid or hinder the adoption of Free Flow Info in a range of schools. However, to have missed an opportunity to use quantitative data to support the implementation of FFI would have been foolish, and so robust measures were designed that would allow a measurement of pupil attainment to be made using the relatively low numbers taking part in the study. The main thrust of the proof of concept however remained an examination of a range of 7
strategies for the implementation of Free Flow Info in schools of differing contexts. We believe that this report demonstrates success in this area and achieves its aim of paving the way for a much larger study. 11. Acting on the advice given at the Mind the Gap Advisory Board meeting on January 2013, a Free Flow Info website (www.freeflowinfo.org) has been established. This is advertised through www.parentalengagement.co.uk and www.engagementineducation.co.uk
12. On the advice of ASCL and the NAHT members of the advisory board, we have already made approaches to the other professional associations to smooth the way for any future implementations Thus far we have had very positive meetings with the NUT and ATL.
5. Quantitative Data 1.
2.
3. 4.
Within the short timeframe available the production of meaningful quantitative data that illustrated the full benefits of FFI was never an option. However, it would have been ill-advised not to have built it into the design of the proof of concept. Given the levels of funding and the time available, we decided to limit the initiative to the teaching of English within the schools with which we were working. As reported in the January report to the Advisory Panel, although teachers were providing teacher assessment for each pupil, results would be more robust if we could measure all pupils against a standardised, common test in English. Evermindful of the need not to encroach on teacher time, and with funds being extremely limited, we called on the assistance of friends within the IT industry to solve this problem. We designed a multiple choice test covering Key Stage 2 and 3 material and this was taken by Mike Wilkinson, CEO of I Am Learning, who produced a self-marking randomised test that feeds back to teachers areas of strength and weakness for individual pupils, providing a bonus for schools taking part. The tool took longer to develop than anticipated but it has been used by one school and is now available to use freely in future research. Teacher assessment over time has been another form of quantitative data used within this study. In April 2013 we received a phone call from one of the head teachers in our proof of concept saying that the Year group involved in the FFI study had already exceeded the ‘ambitious APS score set for them for the end of the academic year’. Although it is impossible to measure, he feels that although only half of the pupils have their work shared online with parents, the whole year group has benefitted from an increase in AfL activity and more detailed feedback.
8
6.Qualitative Data 1.
There were several areas regarding effective implementation within our proof of concept that we wanted to study. Although a decision was made at the outset to explore a range of strategies, circumstances were allowed to play a determining role on the approaches we adopted with each school. Fig 1
School A School B School C School D School E School F School G School H School I School J School K School N School O School P School Q School R School S
1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
3 Y N Y/N Y N Y N NA Y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
4 Y N Y Y N N N Y Y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
5 Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
6 Y Y NA Y NA NA NA Y Y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
7 Y Y NA Y NA NA NA Y Y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
8 Y Y NA Y NA NA NA Y Y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Key 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Did the head teacher request to be considered as a participating school? Did the head of English think it would benefit attainment in English? Were parental surveys conducted to indicate support? Did the school receive specialist input on Parental Engagement and The Big Picture? Was the initiative popular with teachers? Was the initiative popular with pupils? Did FFI increase the quality of feedback given to pupils? Did FFI increase the incidence of AfL?
9
a
Schools 1. 100% of the schools we approached to seek their willingness to take part in the proof of concept said they were prepared to do so. 2. In the first instance we approached the head teachers from 19 schools to seek their willingness to take part in the proof of concept. Having explained the concept, all 19 gave their support for their school to take part. Change seems to have been a constant factor within schools for the last 10 years and head teachers are wary of committing their staff to fruitless and unnecessary initiatives, therefore we believe that the 100% sign-up, coupled with the highly positive response from educationalists, academics, the professional associations, politicians and other professionals associated with education, demonstrates that the concept and pedagogy that underpins FFI is sound. 3. The final selection of schools was dictated largely by geographical factors associated with being part of the larger Mind the Gap pilot and we started implementation processes with 8 schools. All schools received written information on FFI and meetings were held with head teachers, senior leaders, and heads of English to discuss how FFI methodology could be adapted to match their school’s practice. This was followed by meetings with the whole staff in the case of primary schools, and the English department staff in the case of secondary schools, in which detailed discussion covered the implementation of the methodology within the context of each school. 4. The documentation and information developed for the implementation includes information flyers, presentations and training courses that not only provide information on the concept and practical implications relating to FFI, but provides SLT and governing bodies with a strategy for effective delivery that can be adapted to the needs and contexts of individual schools, and which can be modified and developed more fully for any future programme.
5. Schools where the concept of FFI was fully embraced were able to use the strategy to form a structure to classroom practice within which regular feedback was given to pupils. Pupils themselves were able to become strong advocates of this process, providing reinforcement through requests to receive feedback so that they could pass it on to their parents.
10
b
The Management of Change: Points for consideration 1. The intervention model chosen for the proof of concept required teaching groups to be split equally between those pupils who were to act as a control group and those that would be actively involved. This model lends itself more to a primary school environment but presented teachers additional philosophical and management issues: a. within the context of a secondary school classes may only be seen 2 or 3 times a week, and teachers may have to remind themselves about which pupil is in which group. b. teachers from both primary and secondary phases expressed concerns that the gains half of their teaching group would derive from the intervention were being denied to the half in the control group. 2. These points have been addressed in planning the structure of the next intervention, in that the pupil outcomes will be measured through the comparison between whole schools rather than within individual classes within the same school. 3. 100% of the head teachers, senior leaders and heads of department from the 8 schools taking part in the intervention said that they were happy with the quality and detail within the documentation and information provided.
4. Not all 8 schools were able to complete the full intervention, but all 8 contributed in some way or other allowing us to gain a deeper insight into the challenges that we might face in a wider implementation programme for Free Flow Info. 5. 3 schools completed the entire intervention.
6. 4 schools wanted to complete the intervention but within the timescale could not fix IT issues. All of these schools have requested that they take part in a longerterm study. 7. 1 school took enthusiastic part in initial discussions and then failed to respond to any communication.
8. The problems associated with IT will be looked at in more detail later in this report. 9. It is vital that Free Flow Info can be shown to have an impact in all schools and particularly those that are challenged by the need to improve levels of attainment. Plans for future interventions of Free Flow Info include dedicated time with
11
consultants and active classroom teacher-practitioners who have a proven trackrecord for excellence in their sphere.
10. Future documentation also needs to make school leaders aware of how FFI can not only fit with their strategy for school improvement, but in many cases provide a framework within which progress can be accelerated. Future programmes should have a package that provides school leaders with material in terms of documentation and graphics that shows how FFI can impact upon school improvement, and an indication of how the thoughtful promotion of strategy implementation can add to the success of the initiative. 11. Any future implementation strategy will reflect the findings from our proof of concept study: one being that the initiative had greater impact and high levels of staff acceptance in those schools where we had delivered courses on The Importance of Parental Engagement, containing elements of Education: The Big Picture, as a first step to a school adopting the methodology. It was only after we had delivered this course that we discussed Free Flow Info, giving staff a clear understanding of the logic behind the initiative and the benefits that it could bring to all parties involved. 12. The two schools where we encountered negativity from the English teachers whilst discussing the benefits of Free Flow Info, were schools where the SLT had already informed the teachers that they were going to take part. We believe that can be explained by what Tummers found in his 2011 study of health care professionals – that clarifying the value of a policy is important in getting professionals to willingly implement a policy, whereas their participation on the strategic or tactical levels seems less of a motivational factor. 13. The importance of adopting the correct approach within the strategy of change management manifested itself in other ways. There was a strong correlation between the success of the implementation in schools where the head teacher was seen as the driving force behind the intervention. In schools where the management of the change was handled by more junior members of the SLT the intervention was not as successful. We do not have enough information to draw accurate conclusions from this and it is unrealistic and unhelpful to assume that every initiative a school introduces should have the head teacher firmly at the helm. However, any future FFI programme will take account of this and look at how we can incorporate strategies that promote successful delegated leadership.
14. A vital facet of the successful implementation of any initiative within a voluntary context, is the buy-in of those who actually have to perform the day to day running of the initiative; in the case of Free Flow Info, this was the teachers. Experience from leading implementations of strategies on both a national and inschool level convinced us that staff training would be key. However, if all schools receive identical training, we have no way of identifying what does and what does not work. We therefore determined that whilst a common training package would 12
be delivered in each school, some schools would be offered additional training support. 15. 89% of the teachers of English who received the common training package reported positively about the concept behind the implementation and their training. The remaining 11% were found in School F and School G – both of which were secondary schools.
c
Findings from the implementation of Free Flow Info 1.
2.
89% of teachers said that Free Flow Info methodology would have a positive influence on the effectiveness of their feedback to pupils by changing the way they provided feedback. The two areas they felt that would change most were: a. they would ensure that feedback actually provided guidance on what the pupil had done well and what was needed for improvement b. they would ensure that any comments were written in clear, unambiguous English so that parents who were not familiar with the educational process could understand how their children could progress. 100% of these teachers thought that Free Flow Info methodology would improve their effectiveness as teachers and their pupils’ effectiveness as learners.
3.
This was most marked at School E, a large secondary school when, during the training session for the entire 12 staff within the English department, we were considering how FFI might impact upon their current working practice. Colleagues had already accepted that FFI would have benefits and were exploring if adoption of FFI would mean any significant changes to their classroom practice. They examined a series of comments written for pupils that they had provided as feedback from a standardised assessment, and concluded that much of what they had written was superfluous and did very little to improve their pupils’ understanding of what they had achieved and how to improve further. They thought that the fact that FFI captured their comments and used digital technology to share them with parents in a way that all parents could understand, would encourage teachers to: a. reduce the amount they write in feedback b. use more accessible language c. focus more on what was good and what needs to be done to improve.
4.
Teachers thought that their current practice relied too heavily on the pupils to read and understand their comments, and then act upon them.
5.
Teachers thought that feedback could have far greater impact if small but important points were fed back individually to pupils and could see that if
13
pupils were also involved in the recording of the feedback it would provide reinforcement for auditory and kinaesthetic learners. 6.
The FFI process also presented a further opportunity for clarification which their current methodology did not.
7.
By using digital technology to communicate more clearly with parents and engaging them in the process, teachers could see a range of benefits. They concluded that FFI would have a positive impact on pupil attainment and possibly reduce their workload.
8.
100% of these teachers thought that on at least one occasion prior to the introduction of the FFI proof of concept, their feedback had relied too much upon the use of jargon and did not adequately take into account the understanding of the audience for whom it was intended.
9.
School B ran the FFI initiative exclusively with Year 6 pupils. Impressed by the results the head teacher decided to look more closely at feedback across the school. Book checks had previously been seen as satisfactory as all work in exercise books had written feedback by teachers and seemed to convey sound guidance in the eyes of SLT members scrutinising the books. However, when pupils were interviewed with their exercise books and asked about the feedback, a significant number of pupils said that they either could not read the handwriting or they did not understand an expression or what was being asked for. This has prompted a change of policy within the school so that feedback is now undertaken as prescribed within Free Flow Info methodology.
10.
Free Flow Info provides a flexible structure which invites teachers to engage in the practice of giving more effective feedback and using AfL techniques, whilst improving parental Engagement.
11.
Teachers from School B reported that since adopting the FFI methodology, they had found that the instance of AfL activity had increased as well as the range of AfL activities.
12.
Teachers from School B and School A reported an increased enthusiasm in pupils wanting to share their own work and Year 6 pupils taking greater ownership of work and progress. When seen in the context of concerns raised in some schools about FFI being a potentially disruptive influence, this may indicate that, in line with the research on self-regulation and self-efficacy, FFI has the capacity to act as a motivator for better pupil behaviour. It is an area that could be more fully explored in future studies into FFI.
13.
Although 89% of teachers across all schools thought that FFI would have a positive impact on their teaching and the attainment of their pupils, we also asked them for 14
their concerns associated with the implementation. There were two main issues raised by teachers of English: a. managing the technology b. managing behaviour 14.
91% of the teachers expressed concerns about operating the technology needed for FFI, and about the availability and reliability of the hardware within their classrooms.
15.
11% of teachers were concerned about the disruptive behaviour that could occur during the feedback and recording process. These teachers were exclusively from School F and School G.
16.
One of the benefits of Free Flow Info is that it is not a product to be bought. It is a methodology that can make use of technology that is already widely available within the school and home.
17.
28% of the teachers who expressed concerns about the availability and reliability of software and hardware actually taught in dedicated classrooms where a visualiser was part of the permanent IT equipment on the teacher’s desk. 93% of those teachers had never switched the visualiser on, knew how to operate it, or were aware of its capabilities. When in July 2012 we tried to demonstrate the use of visualisers in School E we discovered that there were interoperability issues that, even after meetings with the BSF IT provider and assurances that the problem would be remedied, were still unresolved in March 2013.
18.
This would indicate that the problem lies within existing approaches to IT procurement and staff training, rather than the specific training for FFI. It also raises the broader question of who orders IT equipment for schools and how those decisions can impact on change management. Too often, an assumption is made about the desirability of a piece of IT equipment in a classroom environment by staff members who are not on the front line of learning delivery. The IT in a classroom should be there to enhance delivery and this can only happen when thorough training is given to staff. As someone who has experience of delivering IT related training on a national and school by school level, I am horrified at the way that most schools, whilst insisting upon the importance of differentiated input to meet the needs of individual pupils, seem prepared to jettison that philosophy when it comes to the learning of an older age group – the teachers. Many training days assume that all teachers require the same exposure to IT in order to become proficient in its use. The lack of uptake in the use of classroom based IT demonstrates that this is clearly not the case.
19.
Future FFI initiatives will use simple, inexpensive digital technology such as teachers and their pupils might use in their homes. It should be available in each classroom and schools should have access to the equipment before the initiative starts to enable an emphasis on differentiated learning as opposed to staff training. A vital 15
component of this will be familiarisation time so that staff can remind themselves of how equipment works.
20.
87.5% (7 out of 8 schools) of the schools had a bespoke learning platform provided by either their local authority or BSF provider. For School A, where there was no learning platform we set up an account with Edmodo, a free to use, secure, password accessed website based in the USA that provides an eportfolio facility that provides separate log-on for teachers, pupils and their parents.
21.
Of the remaining 7 schools, 57% ( 4 schools) had issues with the e-portfolio function of their existing learning platform. These were: a. the inability of the centrally managed software to recognise data from the scanners or cameras b. the inability of the service providers to respond to the individual needs of the school clients c. the use of Flash software within the construction of the learning platform that cannot be accessed by ipads or iphones, restricting parental access for those who use these devices.
22.
Schools B & D opted to use different solutions to rectify these problems. School B adopted Edmodo and School D continued with the local authority sponsored learning platform but supplemented the work that was stored with colour photocopies that were sent home in a special folder.
23.
We held numerous meetings between Schools E & F and their BSF learning platform provider, at which we were able to present the supplier with simple fixes for the issues raised, the problems however were never solved and the schools in question reluctantly had to withdraw from the programme.
24.
Many teachers are afraid of what they see as the complexity of technology and avoid opportunities to engage with it. Free Flow Info uses simple digital technology that teachers are either already familiar with - such as cameras – or can learn to use very quickly, such as hand-held scanners. More importantly, in some schools within the proof of concept, the entire process of capturing work digitally is undertaken entirely by the pupils – some as young as 6 years old. It has always been the intention that the FFI process should, where possible, be a shared process. This encourages the development of self-efficacy, self-regulation and meta-cognition in pupils whilst saving teachers unnecessary workload and allowing them to focus more fully on the role they have in directing learning.
25.
Schools A,B,C & D took advantage of an arrangement we negotiated with Maplin Electronics to purchase the cameras and scanners needed for the proof of concept at cost price. Cameras that combined video and still photography with a retail price of £49.99 were made available to the schools at £31.10. Hand-held scanners with a retail price of £41.65 were made available to schools at £28.00. 16
26.
Feedback from teachers confirmed that they were less concerned about the possibility of pupils damaging this equipment than the more expensive, desk-based visualisers. This impacts upon FFI by allowing pupils to be part of the recording process and also reducing the time that teachers might feel they had to spend scanning and uploading material.
27.
It is also interesting to note that, given the prices offered by Maplin, if an average sized primary school was going to adopt Free Flow Info, it would have been possible to buy 10 sets of digital cameras and hand-held scanners - enough to fully equip every classroom in most primary schools - for less than the cost of one desk-based visualiser such as the ones purchased by School E.
28.
We are very grateful to Maplin for this very generous gesture which we believe demonstrates the active interest and support that industry is prepared to extend to promising educational projects.
29.
We believe that this demonstrates that FFI is not a costly initiative to implement. Our discussions with head teachers has revealed a consensus that: a. pupils in Year 3 and beyond would have little problem scanning and uploading their own work b. pupils below Year 3 may be able to upload their own work under supervision c. any supervision required could be provided by support staff or parental volunteers d. pupil premium funds could be used for the supervision of uploading work e. costs would be off-set through the removal of the printing costs associated with traditional ‘reporting to parents’, making FFI an economical and sustainable methodology that can be used in schools of all sizes.
30.
Although our training included hands-on demonstrations of how to use and upload captured material via a digital camera and scanner, we are also exploring other strategies: a. staff confidence would be improved if a video was available online showing the process being undertaken by young children. This could act as a reminder for teachers on how to operate the equipment and also that it is a task that they need only engage with rarely if pupils are allowed to perform it b. anecdotal evidence from pilot schools suggests that pupils enjoy capturing and uploading their own work. The pupil premium could be used to pay support staff to oversee the uploading of work c. as long as all health and safety requirements are met, it may be possible to use parent volunteers to oversee uploading, thus using Parental Involvement to promote Parental Engagement. d. The 11% of teachers of English who thought that Free Flow Info methodology would present them with classroom management issues were
17
exclusively from schools F & G. Both of these were secondary schools. There were 2 main concerns: e. the increase to their personal workload caused by the initiative f. their fears about the disruptive behaviour that FFI would generate from pupils when feedback was being given to individuals and when pupils were using the classroom’s IT to capture and upload their work. 31.
By splitting each teaching group involved in the research in half with 50% of the pupils actively using FFI and 50% continuing with previous arrangements, our research model would have enabled us to obtain the most robust and reliable quantitative data.
32.
Ultimately, despite months of preparation, both School F & School G failed to take part in the proof of concept. We identified several contributory factors for this: a. within the context of a secondary school where teachers only see teaching groups for perhaps 3 lessons per week, teachers said they would find it difficult to remember on a day to day basis which pupils were actively taking part in the proof of concept and which were in the control group b. whilst ultimately schools using FFI could justifiably claim that the flow of information home provided a more detailed picture of a child’s progress and was therefore replacing the annual written report to parents – presenting teachers with an initiative that saved on workload - for the duration of the proof of concept teachers would have to use both methods, which some saw as an increased workload and an imposition that others subject areas were not being asked to share c. School F had just introduced a new reporting system that required no annual written report to parents but issued a graded report each term. The teachers said that they therefore saw FFI as an initiative that increased their workload d. teachers from both schools expressed concerns that the provision of feedback on an individual basis could not be achieved without creating a situation in which considerable disruption would be caused by those pupils not receiving the teacher’s direct attention. e. teachers were concerned about allowing pupils to capture and upload their own work as they said that this would present an opportunity for the pupils to disrupt the work of others. They saw the only remedy to this as creating an additional workload for themselves f. teachers in School G expressed the opinion that “pupils wouldn’t want to upload work as their parents would only laugh at them when they showed them the work at home”.
33.
Not all schools were able to complete the proof of concept. It is interesting to note however, that all 3 schools where these courses were delivered have completed the proof of concept. We therefore conclude that as part of the change management strategy for any future FFI initiative, we will include training on: a. Education - The Big Picture, b. The Importance of Parental Engagement, 18
c. Providing Effective Feedback, d. AfL. 34.
All of the schools that completed the FFI proof of concept plan to continue with it.
35.
The head teacher of School D moved to another school one month from the end of the intervention and has requested that his new school be part of any future FFI initiative.
36.
School D and School H both underwent Ofsted inspections during the proof of concept. School D moved from 4s across the board to: Overall effectiveness 3 Achievement of pupils 3 Quality of teaching 3 Behaviour and safety of pupils 2 Leadership and Management 2
One of the key findings said: “Actions to improve teaching are clearly focused upon underachievement with concerted actions to support teachers to raise their performance. As a result, pupils’ performance is rising.” The head teacher now intends to use FFI across the entire school population.
d
Parental Attitudes 1.
Parents in all schools have shown great enthusiasm for the initiative.
2.
School F was one of the schools that dropped out of the proof of concept. The initiative was to have been tested on the entire Year 7 cohort and parents were asked to give their consent at a Parents’ Consultation meeting and parental surveys were completed . 100% of the 200+ families who attended the meeting completed a survey form and gave their consent for their child to be included in the intervention, indicating that parents from disadvantaged backgrounds would be favourable to the idea of Free Flow Info.
3.
In School A and School C, parents wanted to take part but only if their children could be in the active portion of the proof of concept. In these schools it was decided to suspend the quantitative study so that this could be facilitated.
4.
Permission for their children to take part in the initiative was sought from parents in Schools A and D but significantly we gave neither the parents or pupils information about: 19
a. how they should use Free Flow Info at home b. what the benefits to pupil attainment of ‘at home discussion’ between parent and child were. 5.
Within two days of the work being posted, all children were reporting that they had shown and talked about their work with parents and other members of their family.
6.
Without any prompting, 40% of parents wrote their own feedback on the work and the same percentage reported that they had facilitated follow-up work.
7.
Other than explaining that we were testing a new system of reporting to parents, School A sent no information to parents about Free Flow Info and so naturally, those parents who had decided not to opt in to the intervention had no way of knowing that it had started or what we were hoping to achieve. However, two weeks after the intervention started a mother who had not responded to the initial letter asking for volunteers asked to see the head and said that she had been told about Free Flow Info by other parents whose children were able to share their work at home by using the internet. She asked if her daughter could join the scheme. When it was explained to her that it was already underway and that allocation to the active and control groups was randomised she was hugely disappointed. A week later the school discovered that this mother had found out how to open her own account on Edmodo and was uploading her daughter’s work from home.
8.
This parent had either not read, or missed the significance of the ‘formal’ letter that had been sent home from the school asking for volunteers to be part of the proof of concept. She had responded to the comments made by other parents who were involved in the proof of concept.
9.
Parents from School D told us that they informally swapped information with other parents about how they were using the Free Flow Info material, at the ‘school gate’. Some parents seemed to be more proficient than others and were able to give advice.
10.
Bullet points d7-9 (above) add weight to the findings of the two surveys undertaken by the DfE ( previously DCSF). The PICE Survey 2007 and then the Parent Opinion Survey 2010 both demonstrated that many parents, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, prefer to engage in ‘informal’ methods of communication with their children’s school. We think that it would be worthwhile exploring the effectiveness of a new approach, using what we’d describe as Parental Involvement, to stimulate Parental Engagement: training Parent Champions to reach those parents “including those who might find working with the school difficult”.
11.
In School D, where the last Ofsted report had given a judgement of ‘inadequate’, one of the targets given was: “Improve communication with, and involvement of, parents, carers and the community”.
20
12.
Parental response to requests to join another research programme had resulted in 7 positive responses in July 2012 and so in September 2012 we provided our course on The Importance of Parental Engagement, as part of their training day. The course is designed to deliver transformational concept-change for staff. Feedback from staff was exceptionally positive revealing that 100% of the staff present: a. learned something new from the experience b. left the course with a more positive attitude towards the role that parents can play in their children’s education c. had a greater appreciation of how their individual role could contribute to the attainment of pupils.
13.
The course initiated an immediate change in policy relating to the way the school related to parents. The following week 73 parents were recruited to take part in the Free Flow Info proof of concept. When the school was inspected in January 2013 the report said: “Actions to improve communication with parents and carers, improved working partnerships with the high school and strong links with external agencies, are evident in the noticeably positive ethos and atmosphere in the school, which is commented upon by pupils, staff, parents and carers.” We believe that this is another indication of the capacity of the engagement programme to assist in the delivery of change within the FFI programme.
e
Pupil Attitudes 1.
Pupils have been keen participants. In School B and School A it was found that pupils in the control group who were not supposed to be uploading their work to share with parents had started to do so. It was decided that all pupils should be allowed to do so.
2.
Year 6 pupils at School B manage the system by themselves, regularly uploading their own work to share with parents and each other.
3.
School D was running the initiative with pupils from Years 2, 4 & 6. Teachers are so convinced about the effectiveness of the technique that they have asked if they can use the technique with all pupils in Year 6 after Easter in the run-up to the SATs. This has been agreed. The school plans to run FFI across the whole school in future.
4.
Perhaps a fitting place to end this report is with a reminder of the comments of the Year 1 and Year 2 pupils themselves about Free Flow Info and a brief examination of what they reveal: a. 'I think it’s cool because I’m learning' b. 'I liked showing Mum and Dad my work' c. 'It makes you feel fantastic'
21
d. 'Mum and Dad could write messages to school' e. 'I could show my grown up sisters who are in the army my work' f.
'Mum and Dad helped me make my work better'
g. 'My books fly home on the internet, it’s like magic' 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Comments a-c demonstrate how FFI can motivate pupils, raise aspiration and create an appreciation of the worth of education. Comment d shows that, without any instruction, parents understand how they can communicate easily and informally with school about their children’s progress. Comment f shows that, when given the opportunity, parents can have the confidence to support their children’s learning in the home Comment e demonstrates the potential of FFI to include not just the wider family but absent parents in the process of support Comment g demonstrates that digital IT provides us with the opportunity to harness a powerful resource to improve the educational outcomes of all children.
End of report
22