Governor Name SG
Meeting with
SDP Priority or SEN, groups, SEF 6 SUBJECT Targets SEF 7 th
Mrs Wilson Where and 7 January 2010 DS when Class 2 If you can complete this form digitally please do so. When complete, please email to governors@wvcpschool.com If completed by hand, please return to the school office by hand f.a.o. Gail Abbott. Officer Manager INFORMATION GATHERED Spoke to Mrs Wilson after the session about the difficulties given the high proportion of SEN learners.
PARTICIPATION IN CLASS Sat in on a.m. session on phonics and VCOP and or CLASS ACTIVITY word tasks. LEARNER’S VIEWS See below
Data and Guidance Considered See below Participation in Class This class has a high proportion of SEN and less able working on one table and other learners at the other table. When the class was not in plenary sessions on VCOP and phonics I sat and worked with both groups on their writing tasks. Generally the classroom was bright and attractive and friendly but cramped.
Evidence seen or considered: (i.e. cross section of learner’s work across the term to include complete spectrum of abilities, appraisal, data/ trackers etc Trackers and data previously considered with HT in Autumn term in context of Raiseonline 2009. Today I looked at the VCOP writing with learners as they wrote. Progress made towards SDP objective (We will use the Ofsted framework for these judgements).
Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory, Unacceptable. I can only comment as below: Targets: Good evidence that children know and understand these in literacy. I spoke to nearly all children. Two of the more able children were very keen to tell me how the targets worked. The vast majority know and understand what they are aiming to do in their literacy targets. Articulated with less confidence by SEN learners but most knew what they were seeking to achieve. Writing: The VCOP session was interesting. The majority of children were able to explain the different elements and used the VCOP triangle with some confidence. The more able group were engaged in finding interesting connectives. The less able ones concentrating on the mechanics of writing. The work on words was differentiated across the two groups. No explicit WALT AND WILF. Groups: Query whether the needs of one more able child in the SEN group were being met - she seemed very quiet and isolated). The needs of significant SEN
learners predominated in the individual writing work. One child received most attention because of his behaviour. He eventually settled and concentrated really well on his work for a period. In the plenary session the same learner had been disruptive and that took time to resolve. Review of resources where necessary.
Outcome: i.e. on track/not on track. My overall perception is that most learners are well engaged in VCOP. The vast majority of children knew their literacy targets. Gov to review progress and standards on trackers in all subjects and re groups with HT before SDP. Evaluation of Every Child Matters (ECM) Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory, Unacceptable. Satisfactory. The majority of the children did seem to enjoy their work – especially the phonics. The SEN learners were less engaged in written tasks. One SEN learner high needs had evident difficulty in focussing but then settled down really well for a brief period. One rather quiet child on the less able table seemed isolated. The more able learners were proud to show me their “Sparkle Books”. 2 more able learners got these out and were writing their own stories on their own initiative when they had finished the work in hand. On safety, the physical space is limited and the tables square leave little room for passage. One child who was concentrating on his task got tearful when another was trying to get behind his chair. He gave the impression that he felt invaded. Evaluation of IMPACT
Has the objective impacted on learning improvements for all pupils? Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory, Unacceptable SEN SDP 6: SEN I do not feel able to comment. I saw evidence of good engagement in the plenary sessions by most when there were no distractions. In the writing tasks the needs of one child seemed to dominate the SEN group and the more able children received less teacher time. SEN SDP 7: Targets: good evidence of impact Particular Issue identified regarding vulnerable groups (i.e. boys, summer birthdays, ethnic groups, SEN, able, gifted and talented) See above Should the School Development Plan Objective be further defined? Irrespective of the SDP targets close monitoring is ongoing in this class.
Possible areas for future School improvement arising from this report. As above check Govs need to consider progress on trackers re groups and all learners in all subjects. Would round tables give a bit more floor space?