effective target setting: A Case Study

Presented by Mike Garbett, former Assistant Head Teacher, Aldridge School, Walsall

Introduction

According to evidence collected by OFSTED, the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust and others ‘the intelligent use of data’ is the most consistently effective way of improving pupil performance. Most schools accept this to be true but, until recently, the vast amount of data involved resulted in many being ‘data rich but information poor’. Pupil data comes in different formats, from many sources and often appears to be contradictory, making different predictions or drawing different conclusions. In the past, unless they were lucky enough to have someone with good IT skills and a wide experience of data analysis and application, schools struggled to make sense of the paper mountain, frustration set in and progress was often limited.

Historical Target Setting

When I took over the responsibility for effective use of data I was amazed to find that historically, the school had set and agreed cohort targets (5 A*-C, total points etc) with the LEA without looking in any detail at the targets being set for individual pupils. The assumption was that the FFT or Autumn Package (now RAISEonline) cohort predictions were somehow based on individual pupil predictions so, as long as each pupil ‘met his/her targets’, then everything would be fine.

Anyone who has taught for any length of time is well aware of the many flaws in this assumption. Performance at the end of primary education is not a very reliable predictor of individual pupil performance five years later. Pupils mature at different rates, some primary schools ‘maximise’ performance in SATS more than others, subject preferences and aptitudes start to develop and a whole raft of ‘social’ factors can influence the progress of individuals. The cohort level predictions seem to work reasonably well; probably because the variations in individual pupil performance tend to ‘average out’, but significant difficulties remain.

The work of Professor David Jesson revealed many of the problems with the ‘value added’ system and the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust publicised his findings and encouraged schools to use his system of target setting to make better predictions of pupil performance. They ran several workshops where school managers could try out his system and produced templates which they could take away and adapt for their needs. This was a big step forward and I used the system for one year with my heads of subject who generally found it refreshingly easy to use after wading through FFT and Autumn Package data. The key point for me was that it made subject heads aware of the contribution THEY had to make if WHOLE SCHOOL performance was to improve and it started to make subject areas and individual teachers more accountable.

However, I was still convinced that the only way to ensure real improvement was to turn the system on its head and start with the individual pupil.

Individual Target Setting

In principle this sounds quite simple:

1. Set challenging but realistic targets for each pupil in each subject.
2. Aggregate the individual pupil targets to generate challenging but realistic targets for each subject area.
3. Aggregate the subject targets to generate whole school targets which will match or exceed those suggested by FFT, RAISEonline or whichever system you believe in.

In practice, however, there were still some serious problems to overcome.

If the targets set are totally unrealistic then pupils may ‘give up’. If targets are not challenging enough then pupils will not be motivated to ‘reach for the sky’ and will obtain mediocre results or worse.

I was fairly confident that subject leaders could use a combination of previous attainment data and their detailed knowledge of the work done by pupils since joining the school to set challenging but realistic targets for each student. They could always identify the students who, for a variety of reasons, had no hope of reaching the grade suggested by FFT. This can be the case in subjects which require some special aptitude (languages, music, PE) or where a pupil has changed school (taught different language etc), had long term illness or family issues. They could also identify pupils who were making better progress than predicted by prior performance in core subjects; the talented athlete or musician or the late developer, but were often reluctant to set higher targets for these pupils in case they were too ambitious.

I introduced two simple ‘rules’ to help subject leaders to overcome most of these problems:

1. No pupil could be set a subject target which was more than one grade lower than FFT without consultation with me (there are a few valid exceptions but I need to be convinced).
2. For each pupil who is set a lower target, at least one other pupil must be set a higher target.

In this way, the individual pupil targets aggregated to create subject targets which were at least ‘in line’ with FFT and the subject targets, in turn, aggregated to create whole school targets which were also ‘in line’ with FFT.

Unlocking the power of the data-cycle

So what have we achieved? After all, we end up with similar whole school targets which are roughly ‘in line’ with FFT but have done quite a bit of hard work to get there! Why bother?

The change may seem subtle but it is the key which unlocks the real power of the data-cycle and sets the scene for significant improvement in pupil performance.

Because each pupil now has a set of challenging but realistic targets, each one can be regularly monitored and appropriate intervention applied at an early stage if problems arise. Equally important for improvement, where targets are being met easily they can be increased and the challenge maintained.

These changes did bring improvement but at a cost. Several people worked long hours doing the number crunching and those of us with some IT skills found ourselves taking more and more of it home to complete in our ‘spare time’. It was worth it BUT not viable in the long term.

As new whole-school targets were being introduced (percentage 2 A*-C in Science, 1 A*-C in MFL etc) the task of checking that pupil and subject targets would aggregate to meet these new demands was becoming ever more complex. Fortunately, at this stage I discovered SISRA and persuaded the head to invest!

Using SISRA for target setting

SISRA makes the power of the data-cycle available to all without the need for high-level IT skills. The diagram below shows some of the ways in which it supports target setting, monitoring and evaluation.

In terms of target setting, SISRA adds power to the process in a number of ways:

1. Once SISRA is set up for the cohort concerned, it is easy for subject leaders to provide individual pupil targets in a simple spreadsheet (or via the school MIS) and for them to be loaded into the package. ALL of the whole-school targets are then instantly available as a Summary Report and any anomalies become obvious and can be investigated.
2. The Trends Report shows how the targets set for this cohort compare with those for previous cohorts and it is very easy to see where improvements have, or have not, been made.
3. The Residuals Report shows how the targets for each subject compare (it is even possible to compensate for National differences between subjects) and help identify those where changes may be needed if whole-school performance is to improve.
4. The Grades Report allows investigation of target setting at the subject, teaching set and individual pupil level and is a vital resource for discussions between subject leaders and their line managers.
5. Any changes which take place as a result of these discussions can be rapidly entered into SISRA and the whole-school targets will instantly be re-calculated and displayed.
6. SISRA sorts out the nightmare of different qualification types having different relative values and deciding whether and how much they are contributing to whole-school targets.
7. With the introduction of the English Baccalaureate alongside the many other existing targets, the task of target setting is becoming ever more complex. However, SISRA makes it easy as the developers constantly update the package to reflect the new legislation and to meet the needs of school managers.

Because SISRA allows and encourages ALL school staff to have access to the package, many subject leaders and class teachers use it regularly to explore aspects of data of particular interest to themselves:

1. How do targets set in other subjects compare to the ones in my subject/class?
2. Are my targets challenging enough for the high ability / low ability pupils?
3. Are there significant differences between different ethnic groups or those with special needs?
4. Is gender a significant factor in my subject – does this reflect the picture in school or nationally?

Conclusion

Once reliable and robust target setting is in place it becomes much easier to develop more effective monitoring, intervention and evaluation protocols which release the full power of ‘the intelligent use of data’. As shown in the diagram above, SISRA can act as ‘the spider at the middle of the web’ making each stage of the process in the data cycle manageable and ensuring that ALL school staff are involved in the process of challenging and supporting every pupil.

The introduction of DATA as a regular item on the Agenda for many school meetings has become inevitable and in many schools, SISRA – either running interactively on a computer screen (via a projector in large meeting) or in the form of printouts now provides a vital focus for discussions.