London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – FINAL Revised March 2015

London Schools Excellence Fund

Self-Evaluation

Final report

Contact Details [email protected]

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

Evaluation Final Report

Introduction

The London Schools Excellence Fund (LSEF) is based on the hypothesis that investing in teaching, subject knowledge and subject-specific teaching methods and pedagogy will lead to improved outcomes for pupils in terms of attainment, subject participation and aspiration. The GLA is supporting London schools to continue to be the best in the country, with the best teachers and securing the best results for young Londoners. The evaluation will gather information on the impact of the Fund on teachers, students and the wider system.

This report is designed for you to demonstrate the impact of your project on teachers, pupils and the wider school system and reflect on lessons learnt. It allows you to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of your project methodology and could be used to secure future funding to sustain the project from other sources. All final reports will feed into the programme wide meta-evaluation of the LSEF being undertaken by SQW. Please read in conjunction with Project Oracle’s ‘Guidance to completing the Evaluation Final Report’.

Project Oracle: Level 2

Report Submission Deadline: 30 September 2015 (delete as appropriate)

Report Submission: Final Report to the GLA

Project Name: 6UP: Developing Excellence in Reading

Lead Delivery Organisation: Richmond Park Academy

London Schools Excellence Fund Reference: LSEFR1216

Authors of the Self-Evaluation: Nikki Gamble, Ginny Germaney

Total LSEF grant funding for project: £351,000

Total Lifetime cost of the project (inc. match funding): £351,000

Actual Project Start Date: April 2014

Actual Project End Date: December 2015 (February 2015 agreed for final report and final budget)

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

1. Executive Summary

Caveat: this report has been prepared for submission on the 15th January 2016. It has however been agreed with the GLA that final delivery, completion of the final budget and the final report are extended to the end of February, due to the later start of this project and in line with the time frame in the stage 2 application, interim report and written feedback from the GLA monitoring meeting in August.

This report presents an analysis of the 6UP: developing excellence in reading project, conducted in 9 schools (8 primary and 1 secondary) in the London Borough of Richmond from April 2014 – September 2015. Following a baseline audit and literature review, a 5 part pedagogic framework (called 4XR hereafter) was developed and introduced to teacher researchers along with a repertoire of teaching strategies derived from evidence based teaching practices, which teacher researchers put into practice, reviewed and refined using a lesson study approach.

The project was evaluated using a range of validated quantitative and qualitative tools including a standardised reading test (New Group Reading Test), perception scales, semi- structured interviews, observation schedules and audits. The analysis of NGRT is presented in the appendices (appendix 12). Examples of the qualitative tools are included in the appendices.

Results of the standardised test, which measured comprehension, fluency and vocabulary showed a mean improvement of +3.80 across all primary project schools in the period October 2015 – June 2015, which for the sample size is deemed a significant by the test producers. The comparison group showed a negative change of -1.16 over the same period. However, the return of the results was not high and cannot therefore provide a reliable comparison. The results in the secondary school remained level and this provokes reflection and the need for further analysis.

Following a gap analysis, a series of training sessions was designed to develop teachers’ knowledge and understanding of the higher order reading process, the component skills of reading comprehension, effective pedagogies and text knowledge. The evaluation shows improvement in teachers’ perceptions of their subject knowledge and confidence to teach higher attaining students, as well as increased participation in wider professional dialogue at regional and international conferences. Observation of teaching post-delivery showed more instances of challenging dialogue used to scaffold understanding at the higher levels of thinking. Teachers spoke less and listened more, and interventions were more considered. A wider range of text was used for teaching, especially shorter more challenging texts. There was greater consideration given to the profile of texts used across a sequence of work and across the academic year.

Pupils report high levels of engagement and increased motivation in lessons as well as evidence of wider and more challenging reading choices.

The report explains that time for implementing the wider outcomes has been curtailed due to the original time frame stating a finish date of April 2016 and this has inevitably had an impact on the completion of the products arising from the work conducted in school. Nevertheless the structures are in place and the deliverables are to be published by the end of February 2016 with a website to support ongoing development and facilitate further refinement.

The following recommendations are made:

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

That the framework is tested with a more rigorous control to validate the significance of the standardised data.

That the framework is further refined and that a 4XR project is established. That the published toolkit is used as a basis for training and development including formal professional development (courses and conferences) and informal professional development through the use of the website.

That the framework is used and tested with students from a wider demographic, reflecting the cultural and ethnic diversity of London.

That the 4XR framework and the associated tools are used and evaluated with specific groups of students in particular  students for whom English is not a first language  students who are proficient decoders but struggle with reading comprehension. The literature review indicates that some of the strategies adopted and developed for the 4XR framework for use with high attaining readers will also benefit additional language learners but with only 3% of EAL students across the Borough of Richmond, it was not possible to provide any evidence to support that within the current project. Feedback from teachers indicated that students other than the target group were benefitting and there is a suggestion, born out by the NGRT test results.

Some aspects of the framework require further development. The integration of metacognitive approaches which enable both students and teachers to reflect on the processes of learning could be exemplified with more depth.

Dissemination of the project using the published materials leads to further opportunities to build on achievements to date. Further examples are gathered and used to develop and refine the framework to show progression from years 3 through to 8.

A flightpath from primary to secondary school focussing on the language of instruction is developed in order to build on the emergent ideas from the current project. A core set of tools and common language could be developed with an articulation of different levels of sophistication.

There is further analysis of the processes that enable teachers to move their professional practice forward in ways that are sustainable and impact on students’ learning.

2. Project Description

The project was designed to increase attainment in English, especially in reading, initially in the project schools and then to be disseminated more widely. The focus group for the project was high attaining readers in years 6 – 8. Historically, the project schools have a good track record of pupils achieving level 6 in maths and writing but that success has not been extended to reading. This suggested that there was potential for significant improvement. The mid-term impact was initially expressed as a goal to have more students in year 6 achieving level 6 and students in year 8 achieving level 6 and grade B in year 11.

However, since the setup of the project, the assessment framework for schools has changed and levels are no longer used to measure progress. However, this does not invalidate the aim of the project to provide the most effective teaching to enable the highest achieving readers to reach their full potential. The 6UP project has used a standardised test for reading comprehension and has not been reliant exclusively on SATs measures and consequently the results remain relevant.

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

Within this frame of reference the project sought to meet the following objectives. To:  cultivate teacher excellence  enable cross school learning and a shared understanding of what constitutes outstanding practice  strengthen existing, and successful, school partnership work  create new teaching resources to support ongoing professional learning  further develop existing activities already tested and positively evaluated

Strong, established links existed already across the project schools with heads meeting twice per term to plan joint projects. A team of teacher researchers was selected from all of the 9 schools comprising 22 teachers. Members of the project team were allowed half a day per week to dedicate to the project, which included coaching sessions with consultants, attending project meetings and lesson study with partner in school. Through the course of the project three cycles of lesson study were conducted. The established collaboration was strongly advantageous.

In March 2014 two independent consultants with experience of teaching in Higher Education at undergraduate and postgraduate level were appointed to lead the development of the project. , Nikki Gamble (Associate Consultant at UCL and Director of Just Imagine) and Ginny Germaney (Just Imagine).

In the spring term 2014 the evaluation framework was devised and validated, data collection tools were selected and where appropriate adapted for the specific purposes of the project.

In the summer term 2014 a focus group of students in each school was identified from years 5 and 7 (year 6 and 8 during the delivery period). Perception surveys and a validated perception scale were used to gather pre-delivery data from students. Initial analysis was carried out and feedback on emerging themes presented at a summer meeting.

Pre-delivery data was also collected from schools and teachers using battery of tools and an initial analysis made:  Teacher perceptions  Semi-structured interviews  Observations of teaching using observation schedules and audio recording  Resource audits conducted in school libraries and classrooms  Reflective journals

There was an attempt to set up a control group in neighbouring schools in the same borough that were not participating in the project.  The standardised test was purchased for the control group Control schools were offered any materials produced from the project and accompanying training in exchange for providing the data. Issues with the control group are highlighted in the barriers to success.

In the summer 2014, a wide ranging literature review was carried out of significant research from UK and international sources with the purpose of identifying research outcomes that would have the greatest bearing on the design of the project. Evidence from four interconnecting strands was analysed and summarised. The four areas of interest on which the 4XR pedagogic framework was built are:  Reading comprehension  Dialogic teaching including dialogic reading  Evidence based teaching strategies  Reading for pleasure and the development of a reading culture

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

A gap analysis was conducted, matching the findings from the literature review with the data gathered from students and teachers. Broadly this suggested that research from the 1970s and 1980s including work on reciprocal reading strategies had been filtering into pedagogic practice in the project classrooms. The secondary school had recently purchased a package Literacy Intervention Toolkit based on reciprocal reading strategies which it was using as a basis for teaching EAL students. However the teachers were not familiar with the origins of the research or the broader application of the strategies and the tightly structured lesson plans in the LIT programme ran counter to the flexibility and appropriacy model advocated in the 4XR framework. One school was particularly strong on dialogic teaching but this was by no means evident across all of the project schools. Organisation for the teaching of reading varied as did the quality of teaching higher order reading skills. One school was seeking accreditation as a thinking school and had introduced thinking maps. This matched findings from the research literature which highlighted the use of graphic organisers as an important strategy for supporting readers in internalising text structure. However, the school hadn’t extended this early stage work to explicitly look at how Thinking Maps could be used to enhance reading. These instances were encouraging and the teachers’ expertise could be harnessed to support colleagues from other schools.

However, in the past twenty years, there have been significant developments in understanding both oral and reading comprehension including the nature of inference, metacognition and the impact of vocabulary and syntax on reading comprehension. These ideas were not evident in the project classrooms, other than in a generalised way. Typically teachers were not able to articulate an understanding of reading comprehension or the strategies that might be used to develop it. Unsurprisingly, test requirements dominated teachers’ conversations about reading and reading comprehension. Our distillation of the research suggested that more robust approaches could be used. Furthermore, some of the evidence based practices that might be more commonly used in subjects other than English could usefully be used to support reading.

Following the gap analysis, a flexible pedagogic framework was devised and introduced to the teacher researchers. This learning and teaching cycle, which was given the name 4XR, comprises 5 recurring stages:  Excite (to get things moving. ways into the text, piquing interest, making connections with pupils prior knowledge, experience and interest)  Explore (opportunities for learners to begin to build their own understandings so that new learning can be attached to existing schema)  Expose (developing effective ways to capture thinking and understanding in order to plan next steps. Using tools that provide teachers with a sharper focus for in-line assessment, thereby potentially enabling teaching to start at a higher level. And in consequence meet the needs of the higher attaining pupils who were the initial focus for this project.)  Expand (scaffolded dialogue, guided work and interactive teaching carefully structured to move thinking forward. Focus on the role of the teacher in supporting deeper learning and understanding)  Review: (procedural and substantive review to make explicit the learning that has taken place, to highlight metacognitive strategies and to establish and reinforce effective ways of managing the learning)

A battery of associated tools and strategies was identified to be used in context with the process framework. These included:  Making good text choices and identifying the potential in texts

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

 Developing effective questioning including authentic self-questioning  Use of visual and graphic tools  Using reciprocal teaching strategies but in a flexible framework rather than a rigid sequence  Robust vocabulary instruction  ‘Think alouds’  Inferencing strategies  Using syntactic approaches  Substantive and process reflection

Lesson Study was identified as the model for professional development and the cohort trained in the principles of lesson study. The intention was for three cycles to be undertaken over the lifetime of the project. However, this needed to be revised as the original plan had been to run the project until March 2016, consequently the third cycle, which would have taken place in the Autumn 2015 had to be abandoned as the time was needed for pulling together materials for the toolkit, filming and website. Nevertheless, lesson study is now established in the schools and some will return to this after the conclusion of the project. The insights gained from lesson study cycles were shared between schools via a closed Google discussion group.

In the first phase of delivery (Autumn term 2014) the teacher researchers focussed on developing their own subject knowledge Action plans were negotiated with teachers using the analysis from the teacher data collection and then reviewed. A programme of monthly professional development meetings was put in place to establish key principles, introduce the pedagogic framework, introduce new strategies and share best practice. Expert speakers, David Reedy, Wayne Tennant, Lindsey Picton and Christine Chen were invited to run sessions on dialogic teaching, grammar and comprehension.

Consultants spent 2 days a month in each school working with teachers and students in their classrooms, observing, team teaching, coaching, jointly running staff meetings and keeping head teachers briefed. Students were kept involved through focus group discussions and their voices have been incorporated into the handbook.

From the autumn 2014 through to summer 2015 exemplification of the strategies was collected incrementally following the monthly workshops. Teachers kept reflective journals which were updated each term and uploaded to a shared drive.

The summer 2015 was dedicated to post-delivery data collection, data analysis and evaluation of the project, with some early dissemination through articles and conferences. Discussions have taken place with universities, local authorities and collection

Autumn 2015 activity moved to the planning and writing up the deliverables with further dissemination activity.

It has to be noted that the stage 2 funding application and the interim report both stated a final publication date of April 2016. Completing the project by December 2015 has curtailed some of the activity and squeezed the production of the materials into a tighter framework, which has been challenging. The conference planned for the Autumn has been rescheduled for March 2016 to give priority to the production of the material assets which will ensure that the work can be disseminated to a wider audience and thus provide better value for money.

In addition to the toolkit and website, there have been a number of outputs:  In July 2015, one of the consultants co-presented a referred paper with two of the teachers from the project at the UKLA International Conference at the University of

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

Nottingham. This was received very positively with international interest from Singapore, Iceland and the Republic of Ireland being some of the links that are currently being followed up  Conferences were set up for London Boroughs of Wandsworth and Barking and Dagenham with teachers from the project working alongside the consultant to deliver workshops. Further conferences in Bristol and Haringey have been arranged with additional conferences at the University of Roehampton and in Southampton being under discussion, the former to be organised in association with the Initial Teacher Training department.  Several co-authored articles in teacher magazines have been written. Three articles have already been published in Teach Primary with four more planned for 2016. One has been written for English 4 – 11 and an article by one of the head teachers has been written for head teacher update.

2.1 Does your project support transition to the new national curriculum?

Yes

Reading comprehension is a major focus for English in the National Curriculum. This project has focussed heavily on developing teacher subject knowledge of the components of comprehension and the skills that can be taught to ensure children make good progress and in particular the highest attaining readers reach their full potential.

2.2 Materials are in production and will be available in draft form from autumn 2015 and fully published early spring 2016.

These include:

1. 96 page toolkit using examples drawn from all of the schools involved in the project. This is registered with Nielsen and the British Library with an ISBN so that it can be widely distributed. An initial print run of 1,000 copies is planned. These will be distributed free of charge to schools in the London Borough of Richmond. The remaining copies will be available for sale and the funds used to support the ongoing costs of the project website. The initial print run should generate income of £25,000 after the copies to project schools and review copies have been distributed. 2. There is substantial material available that could be developed into supplementary publications 3. An accompanying DVD professionally filmed in all of the participating schools. This illustrates the pedagogic framework and the strategies that proved most effective. 4. Dynamic website, which serves the purpose of: a. Showcasing the project to a wider UK and global audience b. Supporting the ongoing development of the work undertaken in the project schools, which will continue beyond the life of the project. 5. A series of professional articles has been accepted by Teach Primary. 3 have already been published and a further 4 are in the pipeline for publication during 2016. A further set of articles which consultants are co-authoring with teachers has been proposed to English 4 – 11. There are plans to extend this to Secondary publications but it is felt there is further work needed here before the material is ready for publication. 6. The data collected includes hours of audio recording, filming, and observation notes in addition to the assessment and evaluation tools, from which it will be possible to identify further themes for research. It is anticipated that there will be several

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

academic papers and presentations at academic conferences on specific insights, looking at the micro as well as the macro impact of the project. 7. Several dissemination conferences have already taken place including a peer reviewed seminar and paper at the UKLA (united Kingdom Literacy Association) conference in July 2015. A further academic presentation will be given at a reading conference at UCL in May 2016 and in Telford in June 2016. To date: local authority presentations have taken place in Barking and Dagenham and Wandsworth. In Barking and Dagenham, an event for primary and secondary teachers was held at Dagenham Park Church of England School and was attended by 25 English leads and senior leaders from 12 different schools. A conference for Wandsworth English/literacy leaders was held at Burntwood School. All the conferences have been jointly presented by consultants and teachers, with the express purpose of engendering professional benefits for teachers. Further events are already in the pipeline for Haringey to be held at Tetherdown Primary School in February and April 2016 with the Muswell Hill cluster of primary and secondary schools. Beyond London, an event in Bristol will be held also involving teachers and project consultants will be held in association with the University of West England at Ashley Down Primary School. The events to date have been supported by the budget allocated to this project with the goal of ‘mobilising knowledge’ and generating interest in the work undertaken in Richmond. It is anticipated that future events could generate income for the project schools.

3. Theory of Change and Evaluation Methodology

See Theory of Change (appendix 1)

See Evaluation Framework (appendix 2)

The evaluation comprised a raft of tools designed to provide both standardised quantitative data and rich qualitative date.

Student data was collected using:  the online New Group Reading Test produced by GL Education. This was administered in the Autumn 2015 and the Summer 2015  reading perception scale based on a tool validated and used by Henk and Melnick (1997)  reading survey  focus group discussions audio recorded

This collection of tools helped to build a picture of students’ reading competences and skills, self-image and motivation, reading interest and preferences, reading experiences at home and in school.

Teacher data was collected using:  reading environment audit  photo walk and field notes  library audit  teacher perception scale  ‘Teachers as Readers’ questionnaire  observation schedule (Moyles 2003, Challen, 2007 Alexander 2013)

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

This collection of tools afforded a rounded picture of reading in the school as well as individual teacher’s strengths and weaknesses. They illuminated the culture of reading within the school, resource availability and match to readers, levels of teacher confidence, targets for teacher development, teachers’ reading habits, teachers’ knowledge of texts and teaching competence.

3.1

Table 1- Outcomes

Description Revised Target Reason for Original Target Outcomes Outcomes change T1. Honed and refined pedagogical skills which most successfully develop higher order Teacher outcome 1 No revisions reading with highest attaining readers in years 5-9

T2. Knowledge and application of skills Teacher outcome 2 drawn from national and No revisions international research into reading. T3. Development of subject knowledge including the knowledge of most appropriate Teacher outcome 3 texts and resources for No revisions developing higher order reading with highest attaining readers

Standardised tests were used P1 pupils making rather than significant P1. Increased numbers SATs levels. improvement in of pupils achieving The final SATs higher level higher levels of reading results were not Pupil outcome 1 reading using at the end of key stage available at the standardised 2 and in Key Stage 3 time of writing measures at the this report due end of KS2 and in to the high KS3 number of appeals. P2. Increased reading volume, wider reading Pupil outcome 2 and more positive No revision attitudes to reading to impact on the

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

achievement of higher levels in years 6 up No revision, to the W1 Production of toolkit outcome, though and resources designed Wider system original date of on the basis of evidence outcome 1 April 2016 has of the efficacy of the been brought tools and strategies forward. The only change here is to do with timing. The S2. Plans for structures are in S2 Systemic adoption of systematic place but Wider system effective pedagogy and adoption of schools are outcome 2 strategies effective pedagogy working at and strategies embedding these strategies during the academic year 2015-16. Enter additional D1; Dissemination of Outcome Name add project findings to wider No revision extra lines as professional and necessary academic communities

3.2 Did you make any changes to your project’s activities after your Theory of Change was validated?

There were no major changes and no structural changes following the validation of the Theory of Change, though there were minor refinements such as the addition of extra teacher meetings.

3.3 Did you change your curriculum subject/s focus or key stage?

There were no changes to the curriculum focus of this project. However, the findings could be applied more comprehensively across different subject areas where reading is a mode of learning.

3.4 Did you evaluate your project in the way you had originally planned to, as reflected in your validated evaluation plan?

Yes but with qualification. We decided to use a standardised test to measure the reading which took account of reading comprehension, fluency and vocabulary, all of which were components in our pedagogic framework. The New Group Reading Test from GL Education is reliable up to 14 years and therefore the same test could be applied to all pupils from years 6 through to year 8, which provided greater consistency than using end of year tests. Furthermore, this test has been used for other evaluations carried out for the Education Endowment Fund and although no test can wholly measure all the components of reading comprehension, when

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

used alongside the qualitative tools that were selected, a rounded picture can be presented with confidence.

In the final analysis, the use of the standardised test proved beneficial as there was some uncertainty over the SATs evidence with a large number of appeals.

4. Evaluation Methodological Limitations

4.1 What are the main methodological limitations, if any, of your evaluation?

The main issues have arisen from incomplete data from a comparison group. Three neighbouring primary schools and a secondary were selected to match the project school but only one school returned the data in the summer term. Therefore, while the standardised data shows a great improvement across all project primary schools and the comparison group remained level, the size of the comparison group means that we are unable to be conclusive in our findings. Advice from GL education about the interpretation of the improvement across the group was that the numbers tested and the size of the increase could be called ‘significant’. However, further testing would need to be done with a matched control group for that claim to be tested for reliability.

A lesser problem was the volume of data that needed to be processed. Some tools proved more useful than others and in the interest of economy of time it was decided not to repeat the student perception data in the summer term 2015. The pre-delivery stage the results and been overwhelmingly positive and suggested little room for improvement in this area. However, the survey of reading habits and interests was repeated as student reading choices remained and are of interest where we anticipated the potential for change.

4.2 Are you planning to continue with the project, once this round of funding finishes? Yes

Continuation in the project schools will take place to embed the strategies across the schools. The website will also help to shape the ongoing development. Following the awareness raising conferences in Barking and Dagenham and Wandsworth, there could be opportunities to set up new projects to look at some of the issues raised in the recommendations.

5. Project Costs and Funding

5.1 Please fill in Table 2 and Table 3 below:

Table 2 - Project Income

Revised Original1 Additional Actual Variance Budget [Revised budget – Budget Funding [Original + any Spend Actual] Additional Funding] Total LSEF Funding 351,000.00 0.00 351,000.00 352,302.41 (1,302.41) Other Public Funding 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Private Funding 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 In-kind support (e.g. by 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 schools) Total Project Funding 351,000.00 0.00 351,000.00 352,302.41 (1,302.41)

1 Please refer to the budget in your grant agreement 12

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

List details in-kind support below and estimate value.

Table 3 - Project Expenditure

Revised Original Additional Actual Variance Budget Revised budget – Budget Funding [Original + any Spend Actual] Additional Funding] Direct Staff Costs 47,522.84 (salaries/on costs) Direct delivery costs e.g. 226,928.67 consultants/HE (specify) Management and 2,000.00 Administration Costs Training Costs 850.00 Participant Costs (e.g. Expenses for travelling 7,565.70 to venues, etc.) Publicity and Marketing 1391.25 Costs Teacher Supply / Cover 15,279.55 Costs Other Participant Costs 0.00 Evaluation Costs 0.00 Others as Required –

Please detail in full Resources (reading 8,647.40 materials) Deliverables (website, 42,117.00 brochure, book) Total Costs 351,000.00 0.00 351,000.00 352,302.41

As per detailed ledger below:

Number Date Nominal Value Description Category Account Title

1643 24/03/2014 RPA1160 -2000.00 Admin Support Administration

1779 27/06/2014 RPA1160 2000.00 Admin Support Administration RPA Journals staff costs

228 27/06/2014 RPA1160 2000.00 Admin Support-can Administration RPA Journals staff costs

2000.00 Administration Total

4997 20/01/2014 RPA6010 1041.25 TES connect Advertising TES Global Ltd 5045 07/02/2014 RPA6010 350.00 TES ad Advertising TES Global Ltd 1391.25 Advertising Total 5478 01/05/2014 RPA5140 3000.00 Attendance at planning meeting Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre Preparation and submission of evaluation framework Design perception survey Design reading audit Plan launch event 5558 29/05/2014 RPA5140 14400.00 24 days consultancy Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre 5713 26/06/2014 RPA5140 15600.00 26 days work £600/day Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

5713 26/06/2014 RPA5140 616.76 Costs on 26 days Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre 5833 11/07/2014 RPA5140 13200.00 Consultancy to 11 July 2014, 22 Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre days Planning and preparation for half termly training Training session at RPA Write up library audits and ‘teachers as readers’ analysis Planning meetings and organization of Autumn workplan RPA teacher meetings and pupil perceptions Monitoring Meeting with GLA/LSEF Ongoing production of toolkit

6160 01/09/2014 RPA4135 6000.00 10 days August 2014: Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre Monitoring meeting with GLA/LSEF Analysis of observed lessons for baseline Planning meetings and organization of Autumn workplan Ongoing production of draft toolkit Reprofiling of budget at LSEF request and completion of monitoring reports 6201 30/09/2014 RPA4135 10800.00 18 days September 2014 Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre Update meeting with headteachers Attendance at locality meeting to present update Draft action plan meetings with individual schools Review and feedback on action plans Planning and delivery of meeting with lead teachers Attendance at lesson study interest group set up by LSEF Research different progress tracking systems

6340 28/10/2014 RPA4135 13200.00 22 days October 2014 Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre Draft action plan meetings with individual schools Continuing review feedback on action plans Planning and delivery of meeting with lead teachers Research different progress tracking systems Liaison with GL regarding group reading test School based meetings and lesson observations 6545 30/11/2014 RPA4135 14400.00 November 2014: 24 days Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre consultancyObservations, demonstration teachingStaff meetings in locality schoolsPlanning and delivery of meeting with lead teachersCollection of material for toolkitResearch and preparation of conference proposals

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

6619 16/12/2014 RPA4135 7200.00 Consultancy to 16/12/14 (12 days) Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre Observations, demonstration teaching Staff meetings in locality schools Planning and delivery of meeting with lead teachers Collection of material for toolkit Research and preparation of conference proposals

6835 10/02/2015 RPA4135 10800.00 Consultancy January 2015: 18 days Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre Observations, demonstration teaching Staff meetings in locality schools Planning and delivery of meeting with lead teachers Collection of material for toolkit Research and preparation of conference proposals

6919 28/02/2015 RPA4135 6000.00 Consultancy February 2015: 18 days Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre Observations, demonstration teaching Staff meetings in locality schools Planning and delivery of meeting with lead teachers Collection of material for toolkit Research and preparation of conference proposals 7090 08/04/2015 RPA4135 11962.20 Consultancy March 2015: 16 days Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre Observations, demonstration teaching Staff meetings in locality schools Planning and delivery of meeting with lead teachers Collection of material for toolkit Research and preparation of conference proposals 7190 30/04/2015 RPA4135 3600.00 Consultancy April 2015: 6 days Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre School visits Lead teachers meeting Tookit preparation 7331 01/06/2015 RPA5140 7200.00 Consultancy May 2015: 10 days Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre Collection of impact data, standardised tests Perception scales Focus groups and teacher interviews half day meeting School visits Preparation of toolkit and conference arrangements

7372 30/05/2015 RPA5140 11520.00 Consultancy June 2015: 16 daysData Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre Collection and AnalysisFilmingPreparation of toolkitArticle Preparation 7426 13/07/2015 RPA5140 7200.00 Consultancy July 2015: 10 days Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre Filming, Data Collection, Interviews, GLA Monitoring visits, Report Writing Briefing City Hall Project Meeting Article preparation

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

7670 01/09/2015 RPA5140 15000.00 Consultancy mid Jul-end Aug: 25 Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre days Analysis of results for final evaluation Review of journals and documentation Preparation of toolkit Monitoring meetings 7669 28/09/2015 RPA5140 12000.00 Consultancy September 2015: 20 Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre days Drafting final evaluation Budget re-profiling and submission to GLA Briefing meetings with web developer Planning LA conferences to share results and strategies Writing and editing journal articles Monitoring meetings 7816 26/10/2015 RPA4135 1000.00 Consultancy October 2015: drafting Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre final report 7816 26/10/2015 RPA4135 1000.00 Consultancy October 2015: liaison Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre with GLA 7816 26/10/2015 RPA4135 1000.00 Consultancy October 2015: Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre write/edit/prep for publication 7816 26/10/2015 RPA4135 1000.00 Consultancy October 2015: final Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre stage project planning 7816 26/10/2015 RPA4135 1000.00 Consultancy October 2015: toolkit Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre prep 7816 26/10/2015 RPA4135 1000.00 Consultancy October 2015: planning Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre CPD Wndsworth 7948 29/11/2015 RPA5140 9000.00 Consultancy November 2015: 15 Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre days CPD day Wandsworth CPD day planning and delivery Dagenham Park Planning meeting Lesley Kirby, Mark Hartley Text for 4XR book and training materials Obtaining quotations for filming/editing/design/printing/web development Co-ordination of website, scoping, planning meetings Project management and scheduling for filming 2 articles for Teach primary

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

8077 23/12/2015 RPA5110 28229.71 Consultancy November 2015: 15 Consultancy Just Imagine Story Centre daysScheduling, filming and direction of filming 9 daysEditing film for DVD 3 daysWriting and preparation of final draft toolkit for publication 8 daysWriting and content management for 4XR website 4 daysTraining in schools 3 daysTeach Primary articles co- authoring with teachers 2 daysAdmin and project management 4 daysAddendum to final report submission to GLA and project oracle 1 dayDissemination conference – Bristol 1 dayGLA final monitoring meeting preparation and attendance 1 day 226928.67 Consultancy Total 6252 10/10/2014 RPA5140 358.28 teacher cover Cover costs Barnes Primary School 6291 10/10/2014 RPA5140 358.28 Teacher cover for LSA proj 3d Cover costs Barnes Primary School 278 10/10/2014 RPA5140 -358.28 teacher cover-canc Cover costs Barnes Primary School 6333 28/10/2014 RPA5140 110.16 cover 2 staff x 2 hours each Cover costs Barnes Primary School 6417 11/11/2014 RPA5140 951.50 cover x 5.5 days Cover costs East Sheen Primary School 6416 11/11/2014 RPA5140 525.00 6 up project cover x 5 Cover costs Queen's Church of England Primary School 6409 07/11/2014 RPA5140 435.71 Cover re Lit Project 1/4-31/3 Cover costs St Osmund's Catholic Primary School 6408 06/11/2014 RPA5140 236.40 2 supply teachers re Lit proje Cover costs St Osmund's Catholic Primary School 6600 10/12/2014 RPA4135 89.50 Teacher cover for 6UP project Cover costs Barnes Primary School 6724 15/01/2015 RPA5140 580.00 2 supply teachers cover costs Cover costs St Osmund's Catholic Primary School 6820 04/02/2015 RPA5140 173.00 cover x 1 day Cover costs East Sheen Primary School 6820 04/02/2015 RPA5140 173.00 cover x 1 day Cover costs East Sheen Primary School 6853 28/01/2015 RPA5140 884.00 lieracy project agency cover Cover costs Kew Riverside Primary School 6979 11/03/2015 RPA5140 543.60 supply teachers st osmunds Cover costs St Osmund's Catholic Primary School 6990 01/03/2015 RPA5140 1249.88 Supply cover 7.5 days Cover costs St Mary Magdalen's Catholic Primary 7093 08/04/2015 RPA4135 399.83 Supply cover costs 28/1 & 11/2 Cover costs Barnes Primary School 7131 22/04/2015 RPA5140 1050.00 6UP project Cover costs Queen's Church of England Primary School 7278 11/05/2015 RPA4135 3024.00 Mar-October 15 Supply Cover costs East Sheen Primary School 7449 17/07/2015 RPA4135 630.00 supply Cover costs Queen's Church of (B) England Primary School 7539 03/08/2015 RPA4135 900.26 6Up project cover, OT and asse Cover costs Barnes Primary School 7894 09/11/2015 RPA4135 838.59 teacher cover/travel 6UP proj Cover costs Barnes Primary School 8072 06/01/2016 RPA4135 243.00 cover and travel for 6up Cover costs East Sheen Primary School 8071 06/01/2016 RPA4135 862.14 cover and travel 6up proj Cover costs Barnes Primary School 8078 31/12/2015 RPA4135 707.00 supply cover 6up Cover costs Sheen Mount Primary TBC 11/01/2016 RPA4135 314.70 supply cover 6up Cover costs Barnes Cover supply

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

15279.55 Cover costs Total 8070 31/12/2015 RPA5110 21150.00 website for 4XR Lit Frame Deliverables All Roll Ober Limited 8076 23/12/2015 RPA5110 6375.00 filming/editing 6UP Deliverables Simon Creative Productions Ltd 8075 20/12/2015 RPA5110 4092.00 6up brochure print Deliverables C3 Imaging 8074 20/12/2015 RPA5110 4200.00 brochure design 6up Deliverables Liz Scott PR and Marketing Ltd 8073 20/12/2015 RPA5110 6300.00 graphic design work 6up Deliverables Steven Woods 42117.00 Deliverables Total 5600 01/06/2014 RPA5140 250.00 Half day Edu training Professional services David Reedy 7046 15/03/2015 RPA5140 600.00 Level 6 project at RPA Professional services Primary Education Advisors 850.00 Professional services Total 5234 11/03/2014 RPA4140 810.00 Membership x 9 schools Resources National Literacy Trust 7928 24/11/2015 RPA4005 2000.00 reading materials Resources St Mary Magdalen's Catholic Primary 7971 08/12/2015 RPA4005 2000.00 guided reading books Resources East Sheen Primary School 8100 07/01/2016 RPA4005 29.90 2x Tragedy Resources RPA EMC Publications Ltd 8100 07/01/2016 RPA5115 7.50 postage Resources RPA EMC Publications Ltd TBC 11/01/2016 RPA4005 2000.00 reading materials Resources Barnes Primary School TBC 11/01/2016 RPA4005 1800.00 reading materials Resources RPA Amazon Books 8647.40 Resources Total 5363 04/04/2014 RPA5140 4096.80 TLR payments-Barnes Primary TLR payments Barnes Primary School 5428 08/05/2014 RPA5140 4536.00 literacy project mar 14 - oct TLR payments East Sheen Primary School 5490 16/05/2014 RPA5140 3951.07 TLR3 awards George & Lowe TLR payments St Osmund's Catholic Primary School 5628 13/06/2014 RPA5140 2000.00 Literacy Project L Martin TLR payments Kew Riverside Primary School 5815 07/07/2014 RPA5140 4920.72 TLR3 + oncosts x 2 Literacy TLR payments Lowther Primary School 6248 01/10/2014 RPA5140 1095.30 TLR Thersesa Guarino TLR payments Queen's Church of England Primary School 1933 31/10/2014 RPA5170 8856.56 TLR's Jan-Oct TLR payments RPA Journal staff costs 6990 01/03/2015 RPA5140 1339.20 12 Months TLR (with oncosts) TLR payments St Mary Magdalen's Catholic Primary 7132 17/04/2015 RPA5140 2930.16 6UP project TLR payments St Osmund's Catholic Primary School 7133 26/02/2015 RPA5140 2071.30 6UP TLR payments Queen's Church of England Primary School 7225 11/05/2015 RPA5140 3024.00 TLR x 2 plus on-costs TLR payments East Sheen Primary School 7399 10/06/2015 RPA5140 2000.00 L.Martin, on costs 4/14-3/15 TLR payments Kew Riverside Primary School 7398 10/04/2015 RPA5140 1345.00 LITERACY PROJECT 4/15 - 11/15 TLR payments Kew Riverside Primary School 7449 17/07/2015 RPA4135 1765.85 supply TLR payments Queen's Church of England Primary School 318 03/08/2015 RPA1090 -3024.00 refund of overpayment (ESP) TLR payments 8067 01/12/2015 RPA4135 3014.88 TLR payments 6Up proj 8m TLR payments Barnes Primary School 8079 11/01/2016 RPA4135 3600.00 teacher cover 6up TLR payments Sheen Mount Primary 47522.84 TLR payments Total

London Schools Excellence Fund: Self-Evaluation Toolkit – Final Report

49 31/01/2014 RPA6015 6.90 LK travel conference Travel and accommodation 5478 01/05/2014 RPA5140(B) 257.18 Travel and accommodation Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre expenses on the above accommodation

5558 29/05/2014 RPA5140 365.12 travel 912.8m x 40p per mile Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 5833 11/07/2014 RPA5140 362.55 Travel/Accommodation Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 6201 30/09/2014 RPA4135 190.80 Travel September Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 6201 30/09/2014 RPA4135 224.00 Accommodation September Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 6340 28/10/2014 RPA4135 286.20 4 days travel 6 x 106 @.45ppm Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 6340 28/10/2014 RPA4135 313.25 Accomodation Nikkie Gamble Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 6340 28/10/2014 RPA4135 112.00 Accomodation Ginny Germaney Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 6340 28/10/2014 RPA4135 111.65 Accomodation Virginia Germany Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 6545 30/11/2014 RPA4135 1162.75 travel for 24 days Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 6619 16/12/2014 RPA4135 408.80 12 days literacy proj expenses Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 2007 31/12/2014 RPA5170 25.00 6UP meeting Travel and accommodation 6835 10/02/2015 RPA4135 735.25 Literacy Project-travel costs Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 6919 28/02/2015 RPA4135 238.50 Travel Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 6919 28/02/2015 RPA4135 196.50 Accommodation Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 2132 23/04/2015 RPA5170 34.00 6UP meeting Travel and accommodation 7190 30/04/2015 RPA4135 119.25 travel Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 7331 01/06/2015 RPA5140 641.30 Consultancy May 2015: 10 days Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre (B) Travel & accommodation accommodation 7372 30/05/2015 RPA5140 978.80 Consultancy June 2015: 16 days Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre (B) Travel & accommodation accommodation 7426 13/07/2015 RPA5140 700.50 6up consult/travel/accomm Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre (B) accommodation 7816 26/10/2015 RPA4135 47.70 travel Chelmsford-Barnes Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 7948 29/11/2015 RPA5140 47.70 106 mileage @45p Travel and Just Imagine Story Centre accommodation 7565.70 Travel and accommodation Total

352302.41 Grand Total

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

5.2 Please provide a commentary on Project Expenditure

Responsibility for accounting has very recently been passed to one of the partner schools due to changes within the lead school. Some journals need to be completed which will reduce the above total expenditure. Due to the original report submission date being brought forward, these have not yet been actioned but will be over the next week. A revised summary will be forwarded as soon as it is available.

Consultancy 64% of the expenditure for this project is allocated to consultancy for the organisation and delivery of the project, from launch to production of deliverable and evaluation. Over the two year period this can be broadly subdivided into the following stages and activities with some overlap: 1. production and validation of the evaluation framework, identification and selection of appropriate data collection tools (spring 2014) 2. literature review ( principally spring to autumn 2014 but continued review throughout the project) 3. baseline assessment, data collection, transcription, initial analysis to inform the design of the delivery (summer term 2014) 4. development pedagogic framework and identification of the most effective teaching strategies (summer 2014 and Autumn 2015) 5. production of interim report (Autumn 2015) 6. delivery phase – monthly workshops attended by teacher researchers, coaching in schools, staff meetings and collection of material for toolkit, including filming (Autumn, spring and summer 2015) 7. post-delivery data collection, transcription and analysis (summer 2015) 8. evaluation, monitoring and final report (summer - autumn 2015) 9. writing and production of handbook, DVD and website (summer 2015 – spring 2016) 10. dissemination conferences, articles (summer 2015 – spring 2016)

The consultancy work encompasses a wide range of the project activities including the direct delivery in schools but also the evaluation design, data collection and analysis, a portion of marketing/dissemination, report writing, selection and writing content for handbook, DVD and website. It also includes some administrative time such as attendance at meetings, phone calls not accounted for in the areas detailed below.

Cover costs 5 % Teacher cover was used to facilitate attendance at the monthly workshops, for some in- school meetings and for some lesson study. Supply cover was also used to allow teachers to attend and present at conferences. However some schools opted not to use money for supply and absorbed the cost of cover by using internal cover in order to maintain consistency and quality of teaching.

Deliverables for the project 12% of the costs are currently allocated to deliverables but there will be some credits returned to the project when the final budget is completed. Production of the handbook and DVD are of publishable quality and the purchase of the ISBN will make wider distribution easier. From the initial print run of 1000 copies an income of £22,500 can be anticipated, after an allocation of free copies has been distributed to project schools and to reviewers.

Resources 3% of the budget was allocated to resources to support the teaching strategies, in particular.

TLR

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

13% of the overall budget was spent on TLR payments to lead teachers as recognition for additional work, for example the completion of gap tasks and journals, which were used to gather material to contribute towards the toolkit, articles and conference presentations.

Expenses 2% of the budget was spent on travel and accommodation.

Administration 1% was spent on the administration of the budget, ledger and journaling.

6. Project Outputs

Please use the following table to report against agreed output indicators, these should be the same outputs that were agreed in schedule 3 of your Funding Agreement and those that were outlined in your evaluation framework.

Table 4 – Outputs

Description Original Target Revised Target Actual Outputs Variance Outputs Outputs [Revised Target - [Original + any Additional Actual] Funding/GLA agreed reduction] No. of schools 9 9 15 primary + 5 17 primary + 5 +2 One school No. of teachers secondary secondary supported 4 teachers 66 477 in classes (48 primary + taught be 12 secondary) teacher researchers No. of pupils 61 primary focus group

24 secondary

7. Key Beneficiary Data

7.1 Teacher Sub-Groups

The number of benefitting teachers was determined at the beginning of the project. Each of the nine schools involved in the programme, selected teacher researchers to attend training. They were directly involved in evaluating the impact both on student learning and teaching as part of immediate and sustainable change. Additionally during the project, several other teachers within the project schools received training and guidance on the principles and strategies involved in the project through their relevant leaders.

Some schools received in-house whole staff training from the project consultants. This was carried out on a request basis.

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Consequently the number of teachers benefitting increased as the project progressed. However, these teachers have not been included in the tables as direct beneficiaries of the project.

Table 5 – Teachers benefitting from the programme

Note: the number of teachers identified as lead teachers are included here. The number of primary teachers and 5 secondary teachers remained constant throughout the project with no drop out. There was one change very early in the project, which was a direct replacement.

No. % NQTs % % % % teachers (in their 1st Teaching Teaching Primary Secondary year of 2 – 3 yrs 4 yrs + (KS1 & 2) (KS3 - 5) teaching (in their 2nd (teaching when they and 3rd over 4 became years of years when involved) teaching they when they became became involved) involved) Project 22 Total School 1 4 School 2 2

School 3 2 50% (1) 50% (1) 100%

School 4 2

School 5 2

School 6 2

School 7 2 100% (2) 100%

School 8 1

School 9 5 20% (1) 80% (4) 100%

*** We were only able to obtain staff details from three of the nine schools involved in the project. These are listed above. It is suggested that with confidential exchange, the GLA could support the completion of this requirement for the remaining eleven staff members involved.

7.1.2

This work involved eight primary schools and one secondary school across the London borough of Richmond Upon Thames. At the inception of the project, the nine participating schools were charged to select and assign one or more teacher researchers for the duration of the programme. Elected teachers were well-established teachers, often with some leadership responsibilities in school already, but at a point in their career where the research programme offered the opportunity for leadership skills to be developed and enhanced

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

across the school and within a core subject. The primary team members were from a variety of year group classrooms, but with a majority (8 of 15) based in year six. In some instances a school did not have a teacher working in year 6, which meant that teaching took the form of interventions and lead teacher had to develop a coaching model rather than focussing on work with their own classes.

The spread of teachers across the primary year created some challenges as the standardised data was collected for years 6, 7 and 8. However, there were also incidental advantages to offset this. Teachers from other groups were able to lead reflection on the ways in which the recommended approaches could be adapted for different year groups, thus working towards a model of progression.

The group of five secondary teachers included the Head of English, a year group leader, two English teachers and one teacher outside of the English team, seeking to facilitate cross- curricular. These teachers were identified by the school with a view to their interaction with year seven and eight pupils. The secondary team had a small core of strong contributors but timetabling and workload restrictions including year head responsibilities proved challenging.

In school selection, it was clearly considered that the collaborative working between the primary and secondary teacher teams could potentially support the transition of year six learners into Key Stage 3, as well as improve reading attainment and achievement for the existing year sevens and eights.

7.2 Pupil Sub-Groups (these should be pupils who directly benefit from teachers trained)

Although, the focus for this project was to look at teaching approaches for the highest attaining students, all students in years 6, 7 and 8 benefitted from the teaching approaches. Additionally, where lead teachers were working in other year groups, then students in those classes also benefitted.

The project specifically sought to develop teaching approaches that would benefit the highest attaining at the same time without imposing a ceiling on the other students in the class. Students were not removed for special teaching or intervention, so the actual number of students directly benefitting is higher than the subset. Standardised testing was carried out on all students in years 6, 7 and 8.

Focus Group The focus year groups for this project were years 6, 7 and 8. In year 6, groups of higher ability pupils were targeted in order to support their potential towards achievement of higher order reading comprehension. Teacher researchers were asked to select pupils who were already achieving well within level 5 of the 2014 reading level expectations at the end of the 2014 academic year, or, if this were not possible, pupils operating within the higher aspects of reading level four. Higher ability readers were similarly to be targeted in years 7 and 8 with the aspiration of pushing their comprehension abilities further.

In actuality, focus student groups were not identified in years 7 and 8, where teaching was set according to CAT scores. In years 7 and 8 the highest performing sets were the focus.

Tables 6-8 – Pupil Sub-Groups benefitting from the programme

High attaining readers identified by lead teachers

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

No. % LAC % FSM % FSM % EAL % SEN pupils last 6 yrs (G&T Reg only) Project 85 3% 3% Total

School 1 12 8% School 2 6 17%

School 3 6 17% 17%

School 4 9

School 5 6

School 6 9

School 7 7

School 8 6

School 9 24

No. Male No. Female % Lower % Middle % Higher pupils pupils attaining attaining attaining Project 27 (44%) 34 (56%) 100% Total

School 1 5 7 100% School 2 2 4 100%

School 3 0 6 100%

School 4 6 3 100%

School 5 2 4 100%

School 6 4 5 100%

School 7 5 2 100%

School 8 3 3 100%

School 9 RPA

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Other

Any

Any Other

White & Black & Black White

Pakistani Bangladeshi

Indian

Caribbean African

Asian Asian Asian Black Black Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed ethnic Any other

% % % % Asian background % % % Black Background % Caribbean % White African & Black % White & Asian % Any Other Background % Chinese % group Project Total 2% 2% 2%

School 1 School 2 17 % School 3 17 % School 4 11 % School 5

School 6

School 7

School 8

School 9

Other

Any

White TravellerWhite of

% White British %Irish White % Irish heritage % White Gypsy/Roma % White Background Project Total 83% 3% 8%

School 1 67% 33 % School 2 83%

School 3 66% 17 % School 4 89%

School 5 100 % School 6 100 % School 7 71% 29 %

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

School 8 100 % School 9

7.2.1 Please provide a written commentary on your pupil data e.g. a comparison between the targeted groups and school level data, borough average and London average

The above pupil data represents 61 pupils across the eight primary schools that took part in the programme. The Greater London percentage for free school meals is 18.5% and the Richmond Upon Thames borough percentage is lower at 7.2%. The percentage for the pupils in our focus group was zero, suggesting that none of the higher achieving pupils in the sample group came from households suffering financial deprivation.

The Greater London percentage for pupils of a white ethnic background is 41.6% but the Richmond Upon Thames borough percentage is considerably higher at 75.9%. The percentage for pupils of a white ethnic background in our higher achieving focus group was, however, 94%, indicating a significant white ethnic majority.

The Greater London percentage for pupils with English as an Additional Language is 49% with the Richmond Upon Thames borough percentage considerably lower at 22%. The percentage for pupils with EAL in our focus group was even lower at 3%, representing just two children out of the sixty one. This demonstrates that the children identified as higher achieving for the purposes of this project were not representative in their language diversity of either the borough or the authority.

There is a slight variance in the number of boys and girls in the group make-up, at 44% boys and 56% girls, but this does not seem statistically significant at this point.

Useful links: London Data Store, DfE Schools Performance, DfE statistical releases

8. Project Impact

8.1 Teacher Outcomes

Date teacher intervention started:  Data collection teacher perceptions and observations were carried out from March – June 2014  Project launch  Initial meeting to feedback from data collection  Delivery from September 2014 – July 2015  Data collection June and July 2015

Table 9 – Teacher Outcomes: teachers benefitting from the project

The 1st Return will either be your baseline data collected before the start of your project, or may be historical trend data for the intervention group. Please specify what the data relates to.

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Target Research Sample Metric used 1st Return 2nd Return and Outcome method/ characteristics and date of date of data collection collection collection e.g. Increased e.g. E- e.g. 100 e.g. Mean score based on e.g. Mean score- Teacher survey respondents from a 1-5 scale (1 – very e.g. Mean 4.5, collected confidence a total of 200 confident, 2 – quite score- 3.7, June 2015 invites. confident, 3 neither collected confident nor unconfident, September The profile of 4 - quite unconfident, 5 – 2015 respondents was very unconfident) broadly representative of the population as a whole. T1: Teacher Sample of 17 RAG rated See Appendix See Appendix 2 Honed and Audit respondents from Green = Strong majority 1 refined a total of 22. positive return (5+ agree Collected June Collected June pedagogical or above) 2014 2015 skills which The sample Amber = Of concern (3 most includes only undecided or below) successfully responses from Red = Area for develop primary teachers Development (4+ higher order as audits were undecided or below) reading with not returned by highest secondary attaining teachers. readers in years 5-9 T2: Teacher Sample of 17 RAG rated See Appendix See Appendix 2 Knowledge Audit respondents from Green = Strong majority 1 and a total of 22. positive return (5+ agree Collected June Collected June application of or above) 2014 2015 skills drawn The sample Amber = Of concern (3 from national includes only undecided or below) and responses from Red = Area for international primary teachers Development (4+ research into as audits were undecided or below) reading not returned by secondary teachers. T3: Teacher Sample of 17 RAG rated See Appendix See Appendix 2 Development Audit respondents from Green = Strong majority 1 of subject a total of 22. positive return (5+ agree Collected June Collected June knowledge or above) 2014 2015 including the The sample Amber = Of concern (3 knowledge of includes only undecided or below) most responses from Red = Area for appropriate primary teachers Development (4+ texts and as audits were undecided or below) resources for not returned by developing secondary higher order teachers. reading with highest attaining readers

8.1.1

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Teacher sample: the teacher data was collected from all the teacher researchers: 17 primary teachers and 5 secondary teachers. However, only the primary teachers have been included in the RAG analysis as there were no summer 2015 returns from the secondary teachers and therefore a comparison cannot be made. However, the summer 2014 returns from the secondary teachers showed much greater confidence in response to the target questions and with most targets showing green at the outset. This response isn’t surprising given that the focus was the teaching of reading and the sample secondary teachers were mainly teaching English.

The measured teacher outcomes for 8.1 took the form of a perception survey conducted before the commencement of intervention, in June 2014 and after intervention, in June 2015. The survey questions were devised in order to link directly to the three originating Target Outcomes of the project’s Evaluation Framework and are marked T1, 2 and 3. The questions break down the skills and requirements of the Target Outcomes and demand a response between ‘strongly agree’ and ‘strongly disagree’. Responses were then tallied and a RAG system devised to indicate aspects of need across the group of schools.

In summary, teacher researchers identified their key strengths at the beginning of the project as:  Being skilled in discussing the writer’s choice of language  Reflecting critically on what is seen and heard from the children in order to guide future tools for teaching  Ability to identify key strengths and areas for development in own teaching of reading  Regularity of engagement with school data and how to use those outcomes to inform teaching

Teacher researchers identified their areas for development at the beginning of the project as:  Knowledge of a wide range of texts from different periods, appropriate for higher attaining pupils  Knowledge of suitable texts from different genres and format, including IT and multi-modal sources, such as graphic novels and film  Feeling confident to discuss and compare texts from across different periods and genres  Being more conversant with the features and requirements of research processes  Involvement in making effective evaluations of impact using both qualitative and quantitative data  Knowledge and understanding of current international reading research

Appendices 1 and 2 indicate the responses from seventeen project leaders. Although most teachers already felt quite confident in several aspects of Target 1, a comparison of the two tables demonstrates a further enhancement of this confidence across all T1 questions. For example, only 11 teachers felt agreement or strong agreement in their confident use of language terminology at the start of the project, whereas 14 of the respondents were confident by the end, with 10 of the 17 indicating a strong agreement of their confidence level. Of particular note and relevance to the project aims are the increases in confidence regarding the needs of children’s higher order reading (move from amber to green) and the best strategies for moving higher attaining children forward in their reading (move from red to green).

A similar raising of teacher confidence can be seen across the five questions linked to Target Outcome 2. By aggregate, only 24 responses indicated an agreement or strong agreement in the skills linked to target 2 in June 2014, but by June 2015, those most positive responses had risen to 62. There is a significant swing from red or amber into green across

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

4 of the 5 questions in Target 2. The remaining question linked to understanding of current international research has still shifted from red to amber, but would need some further work and consolidation opportunities during the final term of the project.

Target Outcome 3 has also seen significant improvement, although this is not yet as fully embedded as in targets 1 and 2. In June 2014, most respondents demonstrated uncertainty or disagreement in their knowledge of texts suitable for the focus work, as indicated by the red RAG ratings across the three relevant questions, totalling 17 negative responses. By June 2015, this had reduced to 10, with only one in the ‘disagree’ category and the remaining 9 in the ‘undecided’ category. Although this area clearly needs further work in the final term, progress is evident.

Project Development: Teacher Project Lead and TA/Librarian Interview Notes, May 2015 In addition to the data above, below is a sample of the kinds of teacher feedback received during post-project interviews and discussions, using the detailed interview results from one school as a sample of the impact linked to Target Outcomes T1, 2 and 3.

Continuing Professional Development  The project leader has been very pleasantly surprised about the teacher enthusiasm for doing guided reading after it having drifted from the main school agenda and time- table some time ago. After a little initial reluctance, there is renewed focus and other members of staff are definitely now coming on board.  The project leader has observed guided reading sessions following initial INSET developed with consultant. Feedback from the observations was received very positively.  Teachers have been pleasantly surprised at how far the children can be independent, particularly in Year 4. During CPD work, the Leader encouraged the Year 4 teacher to formulate one key question and to sit further back, allowing the children to discuss across the table. The result was that the children got on really well and much better than expected. This links to the idea that we, as teachers, often may not be giving enough credit to children for their ability to discuss and debate, or that we’re not setting a high enough expectation in that regard.  Having done this work with the children, the leader noted how she is regularly recalling far more features of text, such as those outlined in the TA3 Audit. Planning has therefore been pitched higher than it would have been before. This would relate to an increased awareness of subject knowledge requirements. (The TA3 audit links directly to the project framework and teacher confidence levels in subject knowledge are analysed separately through that document.)  On a personal level, the leader also feels she has benefitted hugely from the 6UP training sessions held over the year.

Impact on Pupil Learning  The Leader reports that all children in Year 6 have thoroughly enjoyed the guided reading sessions and having the opportunity for unfettered talk.  By the end of the project work, it was noted how children were making links between the different texts they had read in a deeper and more meaningful way.

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Next Steps for the School  We discussed the Level 6 SATs paper and pupil access to classics, linked to the test use of Treasure Island. The librarian shared traditions of exposing the children to classic fiction throughout the primary phase through teacher ‘story-time’ and later, planning where appropriate.  Lack of vocabulary was identified as a persistent and consistent barrier as children enter Year 6. This verifies the need for continued focus on this area across the school.  KS1 adaptations of classics and KS2 graphic novels have been added to library resources during the project to enhance the text range even further at different stages. These need to be effectively shared with staff to support future planning.  The potential value of classics to develop personal and social skills was also discussed e.g. coping with disability in What Katy Did. This could be further explored as the use of classics in planning develops.  Discussed the noted importance of visual literacy through books such as The Rabbits and Memorial. This value has been echoed in the school’s work on The Power of Reading project through the use and modelled analysis of Shackleton’s Journey. This would be something to work on further with all staff.

8.2 Pupil Outcomes

Date pupil intervention started: September 2014

Table 11 – Pupil Outcomes for pupils benefitting from the project

The 1st Return will either be your baseline data collected before the start of your project, or may be historical trend data for the intervention group. Please specify what the data relates to.

Target Research Sample Metric used 1st Return 2nd Return Outcome method/ characteristics and date and date of data of collection collection collection e.g. e.g. Pupil e.g. e.g. mean score or e.g. Mean e.g. Mean Increased assessment Characteristics percentage at diff score- 3.7, score- 4.5, educational data and assessment National Curriculum collected collected June attainment data collected for Levels or GCSE September 2015 and 97 of 100. The grades 2015 profile of progress in respondents Writing matches that initially targeted in the Theory of Change.

P1: New Group Whole cohort Test Standardised October June 2015 Increased Reading data collection at Scoring 2014 numbers of Tests years 5, 7 and 8, All at All at end of pupils conducted then 6, 7 and 8 beginning of year 6 = 114.6 achieving on-line for those schools year 6 = higher levels through GL taking part on the 110.8 of reading at Education project the end of key All at stage 2 and beginning of Key Stage 3.

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

year 7 and 8 All at end of = 111.8 year 7 and 8 = 111.7

P2: Pupil Questionnaires N/A June 2014 June 2015 Increased attitudinal and interviews Voice recordings reading surveys and carried out with and questionnaire Key findings Findings yet to volume, wider questioning all identified outcomes summarised be summarised reading and focus children in below more positive school attitudes to reading to impact on the achievement of higher levels in years 6 up.

Table 12 - Pupil Outcomes for pupil comparison groups [if available]

Please find detailed analysis of the profile of respondents in Section 7.2 P1: New Group Whole class data Test Standardised October June 2015 Increased Reading collection at Scoring 2014 All at end of numbers of Tests years 5, then 6, All at year 6 = 117.4 pupils conducted for the control beginning of achieving on-line group class year 6 = higher levels through GL 119.0 of reading at Education the end of key stage 2 and Key Stage 3.

8.2.1

Pupil Target 1:

Please see Appendix for data tables.

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

The New Group Reading Tests were purchased from GL Education to provide Standardised Reading Scores through on-line whole-class testing. Tests were conducted with all pupils in the nine schools taking part in the project within the focus year groups six, seven and eight. These took place during October 2014 and again during June 2015. Two tests were purchased for each school to ensure pupils were not exposed to the same texts twice nor asked the same questions. Tests were of the same level and intended by GL Education for direct comparison as Paper A and Paper B. One class of year six pupils were identified as a control group outside of the project schools to enable contrast linked to project impact.

Firstly, it should be noted that 100 is the average expected score declared by GL Education. With a starting 2014 score of 110.87 in October 2014, the pupils of the chosen schools in this borough of Richmond Upon Thames were already considerably higher in test attainment when compared to the country’s average. By the end of June 2015, over the group of eight primary schools, the data demonstrates an overall project impact change of +3.8 in the Standardised Scores for the study period. Discussion with GL Education, the designers and suppliers of the test, has indicated that this would represent a significant change. As the tests are linked to age by month, and the average score expected to be maintained at 100 as age develops, it can be noted that any score above the starting point would indicate value added progress. Analysing the data further, it can be seen that the average impact on girls reading attainment has been higher at +4.19 points, with the impact on boys reading returning an average of +3.55 points. By comparison to the project schools, the test results from the one control school, indicated a downturn of 1.6 points in scoring success. Following advice from GL Education, it is therefore felt by the researchers that the positive change in test outcomes for the project schools over the relatively short period of two terms is noteworthy.

In contrast, in the secondary school, the test outcomes indicate an almost static score outcome, with results decreasing by 0.1 of a point. This reflects the school’s difficulties in time-tabling and being able to transfer shared techniques and approaches to the focus pupils in the classroom. This will be discussed further in section 11.

Pupil Target 2:

Pupil focus group feedback was gathered using Perception Scales and recorded group interviews at the beginning of the project.

Perception scales revealed that students were overwhelmingly confident about their reading abilities and had positive images of themselves as readers and the data did not provide illuminating evidence beyond this one point.

The recorded group interviews by contrast were a source of rich insight. Home experience was generally valued more highly than school experience. The students were particularly articulate about their perception of reading in school and voiced strong opinions when they felt teaching approaches did not match their expectations.

The data demonstrated several aspects of delight already taking place in reading. Children explained their love of the smell of books and reminisced over favourite reading environments. There was clarity in the articulation of their preferences and a clear enthusiasm of shared reading experiences. The love of authors and their craft stood out as children entered into gleeful dialogue about their perceptions of classically good reads.

“There’s something hypnotic about turning a page.” “Michael Morpurgo has a great feel for his characters.” “I would recommend Northern Lights because I just couldn’t stop!”

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Using this qualitative data, the key themes which emerged as potential for development with students at the outset of the project were:

 Time made available for reading in school Comments related to the pace of reading, which many felt was too slow. Comments about individual reading were both positive: ‘It’s be best part of the day.’ To negative: ‘I’m just getting into the story and then registration is over and we have to stop. I just want to be able to read.’ There were many comments expressing the desire for more opportunities to read in school.

 Reading range availability Students were invited to bring the book they were currently reading or the book they had most enjoyed reading during the year. The pattern of reading was mixed and there were trends relevant to specific schools. i.e. there was a match between the range of students reading preferences and the quality of reading material and it presentation available in classrooms and libraries.

Of particular note, is the selection of available material in the secondary school, where the Accelerated Reader (AR) from Renaissance Learning is used. AR uses software to generate a readability level for books which are then placed in a gradient which the student progresses through by taking a series of tests or quizzes. It is beyond the scope of this report to comment on the efficacy of the programme but issues did emerge with specific regard to the high attaining students. The major one being that readability formula can only assess the level of material using surface features of text, word length, number of words in a sentence. It cannot assess more complex text structures such as sub plot, theme, character motivation, figurative language, rhetoric etc. Consequently, books assigned to the higher levels are almost exclusively classic texts because they are written in a style which generally has longer sentences and is indicative of the time they were written. This limited the choice available to the high attaining readers was demotivating.

 Poetry and non-fiction currently appearing low in reading preferences There were no positive responses from students regarding poetry as a reading preference and this matched the responses from the teacher questionnaires. Almost 10 years ago an Ofsted report into the state of teaching poetry in both primary and secondary schools expressed this concern:

Many teachers, especially in the primary schools visited, did not know enough about poetry and this was reflected in the limited range of poems studied. Classic poems and poems from other cultures were rarely studied and too many of the poems chosen lacked sufficient challenge. Weaknesses in subject knowledge also reduced the quality of teachers’ feedback to pupils on the poetry they had written. (Poetry in Schools OFSTED, 2007)

In spite of the increased presence of poetry in the National Curriculum (2014), our surveys suggest there is a residual reluctance and anxiety about including it in teaching. This was further compounded by the poor range and display of poetry in most class book collections and school libraries. Where poetry was included, books tended to be older and well-worn with virtually no representation of recently published poets. There were a couple of notable exceptions. One is a school where the library was curated by a librarian and one where book purchasing was regular and informed by a passionate advocate for children’s literature. Students are less likely to encounter poetry than fiction

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

in the home. It is suggested that this absence impacts on students’ reading preferences and accounts for the poor showing in the reading preference survey.

And yet poetry has the potential to play a powerful role in the development of reading comprehension. The use of symbolic and polysemic language require an understanding beyond the literal. Words are used in extraordinary ways and language is compressed in what Jerome Bruner calls a ‘semantic squeeze’.

 Teachers facilitating pupil choice There was a divide between students who felt teachers facilitated their reading choices and those who felt their teachers were not familiar with recently published books or were equipped to recommend books to them. Teachers rarely featured in the response to the question about who usually recommended books, with friends and family being mentioned more frequently.

In one school where a teacher had recently moved from year 2 to year 6 the focus group students were typically reading ‘Wimpy Kid’, ‘Twilight Saga’ and ‘The Hunger Games’ as these were recognised as books for older readers. The teacher, who was very reflective of her own practice, had not yet acquired the book knowledge needed to support the students in making more adventurous and appropriate book choices relevant to their age and experience.

The frequently quoted Teachers as Readers project carried out by United Kingdom Literacy Association (UKLA) highlighted the impact of teachers’ book knowledge on children’s reading choices:

As teachers in the project enriched their subject knowledge of children’s literature and other texts, they took risks in their choices and responded more aesthetically. Many transformed their conceptions of reading and readers and recognised their professional responsibility to sustain their enhanced subject knowledge. (UKLA, 2007)

Teacher book knowledge was identified as a strand to run through the programme.

Student ideas on gender also appeared to require some challenge where a clearly perceived differentiation between books for girls and books for boys was revealed in questioning:

“Jacquline Wilson: it’s all tears and comas.” “A girl would never fight Voldemort.”

Additional baseline data collected towards Pupil Target 2 came from the other data collection tools:  UKLA Teachers as Readers questionnaire  Reading Environment Audit lists – organisation, area facilities, genre range  Library Audits – management, staffing, funding, stock selection, reader access and development  Guided Reading observations in each of the project schools

Identifying change and impact

The following notes and quotes are taken from one of the focus group pupil interview conducted at the end of May 2015. These were carried out in all schools and were audio

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

coded with additional field notes. The comments here are representative of the kinds of comments arising from the other groups.

In this school the teacher changed the organisation from whole class teaching to small group/guided reading. This is mentioned in the students’ comments. Small group teaching not a pre-requisite for working with the 4XR framework, which can be used flexibly with whole class interactive teaching or small groups.

This sample feedback links to Pupil Target 2

Student Reflections on Practice and a Change of Process  GR is different to what it was in Year 5.  There’s more thorough discussion.  We used to read aloud in a round. Now we read a chapter or chapters in our own time and then we get together to talk about what we have read.  Pre-reading gives you independence and you can read at your own speed.  We used to read a bit and then one person would put their hand up at a time to each say one thing about what we thought about the book. It wasn’t enjoyable.  It used to be question and answer. There was a question from the teacher, you had to reply and then we’d move on.  There’s a lot more talking now. We discuss the book as we go along.  Miss O doesn’t ask what we think, we just kind of jump in now instead of being asked questions. It’s more interactive.  Plus, we used to just talk to Miss O about it, but now we talk to the group... to each other. We debate.  The Year 6 sessions are a lot more enjoyable and a lot more mature in a way.  We also sit around a table now, as opposed to sitting on the floor in a circle in Year 5. That’s much better.

Development of Dialogue and the Exchange of Ideas  We feel much more confident to speak now.  It’s also helped our independence because instead of just asking Miss O’Gorman, she would encourage us to ask each other. That helped us a lot in our debating and speaking skills.  Pupils talked about use of The Rabbits: When we first read the book, we all thought we had it clear about what was happening, but then Jake disagreed. Children then had to argue to defend their ideas. “It really sparked a good debate.” Jake: I did do some of it on purpose, but I was really enjoying the debating element. It was very enjoyable and it made everyone speak.  Not expecting the teacher to help us all the time, but for us to talk to each other to understand is really good.  We have got more out of the books from talking to each other. We really study them now; we know them back-to-back.  I prefer it when everybody’s new to the book, because they give their opinion rather than the facts (from knowing what’s coming.)

Enjoyment

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

 We focus on more intricate details in the books now, so we’ve been able to enjoy them more, because we’ve really been able to understand what’s going on... through noticing.  We enjoy the books more because we’re developing a deeper understanding of them.

Genre and Range  This year we’ve been reading a much bigger variety of books e.g. poetry, picture books, classics  The books and texts we read now are much better as well. The stories before weren’t as eventful or as interesting.  The project has introduced us to a much wider range of books, like The Rabbits (much cheering for The Rabbits.) That book really got your imagination working. You really had to think about what they were trying to show in each picture. You had to read between the lines to work it out.  Not all picture books are easy. We did the question quadrant with The Rabbits. Some of the questions had one answer, but there were lots of questions with more than one answer. There were lots of different views about Memorial too and everyone had a justified reason for those views. That book was really sad.

Grouping Preferences  I prefer small group Guided Reading to the full class ones. I think you’re more focused in a way, you get to say more and the debate is better. And you don’t get as much chance to talk when there’s 30 people and 30 opinions. Also, if you’ve been chosen once and given your opinion, you’re unlikely to get chosen again and then things move on, so you’ve lost your chance.  In a whole class, you have to just put up your hand and wait. But in a small group, you get more chances to agree and disagree. You explore it more.  Also, in a small group, it’s easier to get everyone on the same page (as in creating agreement.) With 30 people, it’s hard to get all the people to think of the story in the same way.  The thing about reading in a whole class as well is that it’s quite gradual – maybe a chapter in two weeks. That means you can’t get into the story as much, because when I get into a book, I want to read to the end to find out what happens more quickly. It’s better to be able to read at your own pace.  I find when I’m reading in class that you can’t really get into ‘the world’ because you’ve got loads of people around you, fidgeting and making noises.  I think another reason why we’ve been very clever is because Mrs O’Gorman sets the sessions out in ability. So if you’re maybe not so quick a reader and need a bit more help, it will be easier because you’ll be going at your own pace in your own group.  When suggested, pupils also liked the idea of buddy readers, including with peers who read at a different pace, purely for the exchange of ideas. They might be slower because they’re thinking more. If you buddied up, it might actually help you as a faster reader, because you might be reading so fast that you’re not understanding the book - you might skip things.

Impact on Learning

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

 The group feel they could apply the skills they’ve learnt to other books in the future.  The group also feel it has helped their writing through discussion of vocabulary, the full meaning of words and being able to use this wider range of vocabulary in their own writing.  We look at the English (language) side of the book as well as the story.  We’ve learnt to read between the lines and how we can think like the character thinks.  It’s also easier because we’re helping each other to clarify or find out what the words mean. Then you can carry on reading and enjoy it more, because you know what those new words mean.  When you understand the words, especially in older books, you can visualise it much more clearly. You understand what’s happening. Whereas, if there are words you don’t understand, you can’t picture it clearly enough in your mind. Now I really SEE it. Once you paint the picture in your mind, then you know.  Children feel they’d be more confident taking on harder texts now.  In these sessions, and with each other’s help, you start to find out how people figure out things to do with the book. So if you understand a book a bit better than another person, or if they understand it differently, maybe the person will find the next book easier to understand. (Peer-modelled comprehension)  Children felt that if they had been doing the new kind of work all the way through primary, that they would be ‘Year 10 readers’. After having seen how much we’ve come on from this, we’d have been much better at reading by now. We’ve become much more independent readers. Each of us has had to focus on the book and each of us has had to pick up something different. If we’d done this from the beginning, it would also have been much better for our talking and listening skills. It wouldn’t be ‘put your hand up’, you’d be able to talk, communicate and debate with your class a lot more. Also, you’d be experiencing new genres. You’d start with easier books in Reception, but even if you language was really bad (in order words, ‘developing’) you’re still going to state your opinion and tell your class mates things about the book. Then, as you go up the school, you’d experience all the different types of genres. As you get to Year 6 you’d be... a MEGAMIND.

8.3 Wider System Outcomes

Table 13 – Wider System Outcomes

Target Outcome Research Sample Metric 1st Return 2nd Return method/ characteristics and date of and date of data collection collection collection e.g. e.g. Paper e.g. Surveys e.g. e.g. Average e.g. Average Teachers/schools survey completed by all average number of number of involved in intervention participating number of events events making greater use of teachers events attended in attended in attended the academic the academic networks, other schools per year 2012- year 2013- and colleagues to teacher 2013: 3.2 2014: 4.3 improve subject per year before the

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

knowledge and teaching project Average practice and over number of the course events of the attended in project the academic year 2014- 2015: 4.5 S1: N/A Toolkit and internet To be Production of Toolkit and site sharing project completed by resources designed on the outcomes and February basis of evidence of the strategies 2016 efficacy of the tools and strategies S2: N/A Dissemination of To be Systematic adoption of project practice completed by effective pedagogy and across the focus end February strategies project schools 2016 and beyond

8.3.1 Wider system outcomes are still in the development stage.

8.4 Impact Timelines

 At what point during/after teacher CPD activity did you expect to see impact on teachers? Did this happen as expected?

All CPD activity was booked and scheduled with project school head teachers during the summer term of 2014 in preparation for an early start at the beginning of the autumn term in September 2014. Workshops then took place at regular intervals through the rest of 2014 to the end of the summer 2015. Clear expectations of teacher reflection and feedback were given. Teachers kept written journals in notebooks or online, these were shared via a closed google Group and in sessions. Teachers were requested to conduct classroom trials of new strategies immediately after each training session in order to feedback monthly meetings. This was further supported by establishing the expectation of lesson study work each term.

 At what point during/after teacher CPD activity did you expect to see impact on pupils? Did this happen as expected?

From baseline discoveries, the majority of pupils were found to be reading ‘in a round’ with little opportunity for pupil lead text discussion, so it was hoped that pupils would notice immediate change and improvement, both in guided reading technique and in the choice of texts provided. Whilst most achieved this, not all project schools were able to initiate these changes at the same pace.

Understanding of the teaching strategies deepened over time. Initially teachers need to try out ideas and it was noticeable that the same strategies seemed to be appealing, the use of question quadrants, semantic mapping, think aloud strategies were used frequently. As the project progressed there was greater flexibility in adapting strategies at the same time as retaining the principle on which they were based. The repertoire of strategies also increased.

Some of the suggested approaches were more difficult to implement because they required systemic changes, which wouldn’t necessarily have been the most useful thing to do at that point in time, if for instance a major change had already taken place in a relatively short space of time. Some schools had clearly worked out policies regarding the grouping of students. One of the intended strengths of the 4XR programme is that it can be adapted to

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

work in different contexts without losing the essential ingredients. It is not dependent on a particular form of classroom organisation.

This will be discussed further in section 11.

 At what point did you expect to see wider school outcomes? Did this happen as expected?

It was hoped that where pedagogical change and pupil outcomes were able to be improved quickly, there would be enthusiasm to share this news with others in the school as quickly as possible and disseminate the evolving practice during the two terms of the project. Some schools were able to accommodate this focus, but others understandably had other planned actions and priorities during the project period. Some schools requested consultants to lead staff meetings, others were jointly run by teachers and consultants and in some schools teachers led staff meetings on aspects of the 4XR framework and associated teaching approaches. Where practice has not yet been disseminated, shared or moderated, this will become part of the project’s continuing work during the autumn term of 2015 as indicated in the interim report. And will be developed throughout 2016 once the published handbook is available to support teachers leading staff development.

 Reflect on any continuing impact anticipated.

Within the focus schools, it is anticipated that changes in practice will continue and widen to better support pupils across the whole school. Support has already been given to some schools in methods of adapting the shared practices for other year groups and abilities. In addition, once the toolkit, website and resources are completed, their content can be made available to others both within the initial project school group and beyond. A series of journals articles are also being written by staff involved and An Excellence in Reading conference is in the process of being planned for 2016 linked to the findings and outcomes of the project. Discussions have taken place with the Course Director of the PGCE at the University of Roehampton regarding some workshops for student teachers. This should help to increase the range of professionals informed about the project and the findings.

11. Reflection on overall project impact (maximum 1,500 words)

All the evidence should be brought together here (achievement of outputs and outcomes, and the assessment of project impact) to produce well informed findings, which can be used to inform policy development in a specific area as well as the meta-evaluation of the LSEF.

The period for delivery of this project was relatively short, nevertheless the impact on reading in the primary schools both in terms of standardised results and qualitative responses was high. Although the project focussed on high attaining pupils, the benefits were wide reaching. One special needs teacher reported back with delight and surprise to the class teacher that one of her pupils was more engaged with the reading process and was asking self-initiated questions as they monitored their own understanding. This supports the view that by raising the bar for the high attaining students, the bar is raised for all. The project team were clear from the outsets that ceilings would not be placed on student learning and that the approaches developed would be made available to all students. This is reflected in the increased test scores across the entire year 6 cohort, not only the high attaining students.

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

The initial audits and literature review, identified strengths and areas for development in the project schools. These were drawn from the four areas of research that we examined for our literature review i.e. reading comprehension, dialogic teaching, evidence based reading practices and reading for pleasure. Some of the themes that emerged and were addressed through training included:

Identified area for development Steps taken  Moving too quickly to direct teaching Opportunities for pupils to explore text prior without opportunities for pupils to to guided work or whole class interactive explore and build their own teaching. (Anderson, Symons, Pressley and understandings and schema. others)

 Too much interrogative questioning Developing knowledge of scaffolded which is an inhibitor to dialogue and the role of exploratory talk, comprehension understanding the role of teacher questioning, developing argumentation, active listening (Alexander, Nystrand, Lefstein, Mercer)  Insufficient opportunities for Various strategies introduced and devised students to ask and answer their for using authentic questions and moving own authentic questions and to children towards more sophisticated analyse their own questions questioning, (Bidwell, Gambrell, Nystrand and others)  Vocabulary work focussing on wow Extended to develop teacher’s awareness words or ‘interesting’ vocabulary but of tier 2 vocabulary and the impact this can no demonstration of strategic have on children’s reading comprehension selection of vocabulary to enhance (Stahl, Beck, McKeown Kucan and others) comprehension  Limited understanding of reciprocal Introduced reciprocal teaching strategies, teaching methods – varied across but used flexibly rather than in a rigid schools framework (Oczuks, Palinscar and Brown, Tennant and others)  Text selection often insufficiently Training on the use of short fiction, poetry, challenging or too long for guided literary non-fiction, picture books for older work and insufficient variety. readers (Gamble, Styles, Evans and others) Adaptations of classic texts of poor quality in some schools. Lack of poetry. Potential of illustrated text for higher attaining readers not understood.  Lack of knowledge about meta- Training on the use of ‘think alouds’ cognitive strategies for reading (Pressley, Connor, Applegate and others)  Although graphic organisers and Training on thinking maps and other thinking maps were used in one graphic organisers and thinking tools to school this wasn’t a widespread support reading comprehension (Hyerle, practice Hattie, Petty and others)

Teachers reported greater increased subject knowledge and greater confidence in teaching higher attaining students. In collecting exemplification of teaching strategies for the toolkit it was possible to identify teaching strengths in all of the project. Working with teacher researchers to co-author articles, submit conference proposals and deliver training in other local authorities has further enhanced the professionalism and led to increased motivation.

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

The nine schools in this project had a pre-existing relationship which has been further strengthened through the project. A plan for ongoing work has been devised, with specific strengths identified in each of the schools. For example, one school has taken a lead on helping others implement a wider range of graphic organisers to capture student’s thinking and to show how this can be used to plan more effectively in order that that deeper learning can take place. Another school is leading in dialogic teaching and the application to reading comprehension.

Towards the end of delivery period there were some interesting and exciting developments in devising a potential flight path of skills from primary through to secondary, with a greater appreciation for the ways in which the secondary school might build on the considerable achievements in year 6.

The toolkit being developed in the autumn term and published in the early spring term will provide further support for teachers as they implement ideas across their schools.

10. Value for Money

10.1 Apportionment of the costs across the activity Please provide an estimate of the percentage of project activity and budget that was allocated to each of the broad activity areas below. Please include the time and costs associated with planning and evaluating those activity areas in your estimates.

Broad type of activity Estimated % project £ Estimated cost, activity including in kind Producing/Disseminating 40 140,920.96 Materials/Resources Teacher CPD (face to 3.5 12,330.58 face/online etc) Events/Networks for 3 10,569.07 Teachers Teacher 1:1 support 7.75 27,303.44 Events/Networks for Pupils 0 0 Others as Required – Please See below See below detail in full Other – Administration inc 4.5 15,853.61 GLA meetings Other – Advertising 0.5 1,761.51 Other – Teacher costs 17.75 62,533.68 Other – Resources for 2.5 8,807.56 schools Other – Literature review 6.5 22,899.66 Other – Data collection 8.25 29,064.95 and evaluation Other – report writing 5.75 20,257.39 TOTAL 100% £ 352,302.41

Please provide some commentary reflecting on the balance of activity and costs incurred: Would more or less of some aspects have been better?

Caveat: this report has been prepared for submission on the 15th January 2016. It has however been agreed with the GLA that final delivery, completion of the final budget and the

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

final report are extended to the end of February, due to the later start of this project and in line with the time frame in the stage 2 application, interim report and written feedback from the GLA monitoring meeting in August.

Consequently, there will be some changes to these percentages and costs. Some of the production costs will be reduced. The percentage allocated to production costs will be lower and the percentage allocated to evaluation cost is likely to be slightly higher.

Value of the project

1. 32% of total project costs (112,736.77) was allocated to training teachers. This includes lead teacher training and whole school staff meetings, where these were taken up. This took the form of CPD workshops, training teachers in the components of the framework and the value of each phase in promoting learning; 1 to 1 support in school coaching, joint teaching, review, target setting, gap tasks, journaling, lesson study. The cost is approximately £5,000 per teacher over the two year period.

There are 5 benefits associated with this cost:  Immediate benefit to the project students, especially those in the primary schools where results on the standardised pre and post test showed noteworthy increases and detailed in appendix 10  Immediate benefit to the teachers involved in the project as indicated in the RAG analysis (appendices 13 and 14)  Mid-term benefit as teachers promote the use of the framework within their schools  Mid-term benefit – teachers advocate and disseminate their experience through write- ups, case studies and conference presentations  Mid – longer term benefit

These benefits relate to the LSEF goal to cultivate teaching excellence through investment in teaching and teachers so that attention is re-focused on knowledge-led teaching and curriculum.

2. 6.5% of the total project cost was associated with the literature review and development of the 4XR framework derived from the review of the research. Additionally, the most effective evidence-based practices that can be most effectively applied of the teaching of reading comprehension. This equates to approximately 38 days of research time (2 researchers), mostly at the commencement of the project but with ongoing review of relevant articles as published. This comprehensive review covered books and journal articles including international research on reading comprehension and inference making, the teaching of reading comprehension, reciprocal teaching strategies, dialogic teaching and dialogic reading, evidence based teaching, visual and graphic strategies for learning, vocabulary development, syntax and understanding, schema theory. The research is documented and a summary paper and bibliography will be available for download on the website.

 Immediate benefit – adds to the security of the project outcomes as all of the strategies were derived from tested and researched

This relates to the LSEF goal Support the development of activity which has already been tested and has some evaluation (either internal or external), where further support is needed to develop the activity.

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

In this case a synthesis of research has led to the creation of a unifying framework which orchestrates strategies so that they can be used flexibly and with appropriacy.

3. 40% of the total project costs (£140,920.96) have been allocated to the collection of material, writing and production of deliverables, though this figure will be reduced in the final budget as mentioned in the caveat above. Included in this cost are the production of a handbook, the production of an accompanying DVD, a website, dissemination conferences and articles co-authored with teachers for professional magazines and journals.

The materials will be sold to generate income. 1000 initial print run with a cost of £25 per unit is expected to generate £22,000, allowing for free copies to project schools and review copies for publicity. There has to date been plenty of interest and anticipation of the materials with requests from schools and local authorities, reached via conferences and articles, for early notification on publication. The approachable, practical tone of the material is likely to also appeal to teacher trainers and student teachers. Obtaining and ISBN and lodging the publication with the British Library will facilitate distribution as will purchasing options via the website. Subsequent print runs have the potential to generate further income.

The period of the project delivery was relatively short and realistically most teachers will still be processing new ideas and refining their teaching as well as accommodating theory. A website that allows for interactivity, for ongoing work to be uploaded and for questions to be asked and answered is intended to support an ongoing process and to encourage further evaluation with new groups of students and teachers.

The benefits associated with these costs are

 Immediate benefit – teachers and schools will be supported in embedding the 4XR strategies  Immediate benefit – teachers professionalism enhanced through presenting at regional conferences and the UKLA international conference and through co-authoring articles  Immediate benefit – students in classes where teachers implement the 4XR strategies can expect to benefit with increases in reading attainment as with the

This benefit relates to LSEF goal the creation of new resources and support for teachers, to raise achievement in priority subjects (English) in primary and secondary schools

10.2 Commentary of value for money Please provide some commentary reflecting on the project’s overall cost based on the extent to which aims/objectives and targets were met. If possible, draw on insight into similar programmes to comment on whether the programme delivers better or worse value for money than alternatives.

Overall the projects aims and targets have been met and the final cost will come under the awarded funding. There are several considerations to be taken into account in assessing the value for money.

Firstly, the project did not solely test out a package that had already been produced. There was substantial development work based on research and evidence based practices. And with due acknowledgement of all the research on which the 4XR framework is based, the

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

outcome is an original piece of work conceived from a synthesis of strategies and represented as a unified framework that can now be refined. The package of handbook, DVD and website are highly useable and make it possible to replicate in other areas. For the programme to be fully effective some accompanying training would be necessary to encourage the level of professional reflection and avoid a technicist approach. Nevertheless, the one off costs of developing the programme would not need to be repeated.

The development of a saleable product also adds to the cost effectiveness of the project. A modest projection is that the initial print run of 1,000 copies of the handbook and DVD could recoup £22,500. The cost of the handbook to non-project schools is an affordable £25. The interactive website is intended to provide additional information, exemplification and support and a space for teachers to ask and find answers to their questions.

However, there is greater potential in developing an accompanying training package and training teacher researchers to deliver the programme. Cost effective ways of developing training using webinar platforms could keep costs at a reasonable level and certainly comparable to similar packages comprising handbook, on-site training and webinar follow-on training.

It needs to be acknowledged that although the NGRT results were extremely encouraging, the lack of a robust control group means that further testing would need to be undertaken before making strong claims about efficacy. And as highlighted in the recommendations further testing with other groups would be needed in order to confirm the wider However, with a fully formed package, this would be an easier undertaking.

In order to develop a comparative notion of cost, two projects recently evaluated by the Education Endowment Foundation are referred to below. Although there is no direct comparison a discussion to be made between the development of 4XR and the evaluation of these already published resources, it is nevertheless useful to compare scale, apparent effectiveness and the costs to a school for the purchase of the programme.

The first is the evaluation of The Literacy Intervention Toolkit (LIT) developed by the Hackney Trust. This programme is similar to 4XR in that it aims to develop reading comprehension using reciprocal reading strategies. It is similar in that it can be delivered through small group or guided work or whole class interactive teaching. It differs in that it is highly structured and includes worked out lesson plans and that it targets students at the other end of the spectrum of reading attainment – year 7 students who are working below level 4.

The evaluation of the project (2012 – 2014) was undertaken in 20 schools and cost £310,000 with a randomized control group in 19 schools. This did not include any research or development costs as it was an evaluation of a pre-existing programme. The evaluation used a standardized test Access Reading Test (ART) and concluded that it was not possible to demonstrate the efficacy of the LIT programme, which was data suggested resulted in a +1 month improvement over expected age-related progress.

The costs of the LIT programme to a school are £3000 for initial training on site for up to 20 members of staff and teaching materials. £7 for pupil materials.

The second comparison is with a reader development project, Chatterbooks Chatterbooks was originally a programme run by the Reading Agency in libraries but has more recently been adapted for schools. The format is a book club style small group project. It is similar to 4XR in that it promotes a reading culture and takes account of students reading interests. Talk is key to developing a response to text. The project was evaluated on of four initiatives seeking to improve reading comprehension.

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

The evaluation was undertaken between 2012 – 14. The evaluation cost £397,314 Efficacy was measured using the NGRT, the same standardized test used for our evaluating the 6UP project. 557 students across 12 schools were tested pre and post-delivery. The result showed a negative impact of -2 months

Chatterbooks training costs £1,000 per session for 20 people and a Chatterpack for each participating students costs £5, typically this works out at a cost of £10 - £20 per pupil with costs of books and resources to be added on top. Unlike 4XR the small group format is an essential element of the programme.

The quoted figures provide a rough comparison and are not intended to do more than that as there is no direct equivalence. The aims of the 6Up project were to develop teachers’ expertise and subject knowledge, develop teaching approaches to raise the attainment of the highest achieving readers, evaluate, produce resources and disseminate. Whereas the two projects referenced here sought only to evaluate existing packages.

On the data available, 4XR achieved better results. However, cautions about making big claims about the results already been made. It as to be acknowledged that the evaluations for the EEF were more robust and had larger randomised control groups.

In terms of cost to schools, it seems reasonable to claim that the development of a 4XR training package could be provided at no greater cost than the LIT programme. As a whole class teaching programme 4XR would have a wider reach than the small group Chatterbooks programme, though the training could be more expensive initially.

In the final analysis more work would need to be undertaken in comparing to weigh up the relative values of each of these projects.

11. Reflection on project delivery

This section is designed to allow for a discussion of wider issues relating to the project. (maximum 1,500 words)

11.1 Key Enablers and Barriers to Achievement  Were there internal and/or external factors which appear to have had an effect on project success, and how were these responded to (if applicable)?  What factors need to be in place in order to improve teacher subject knowledge?

Enablers to Support Subject Knowledge  Practical activity in training – demonstration of approaches through the activities carried out  Variety of clear strategies for immediate classroom implementation  Range of text choices expanded subject knowledge  Support and demonstration in training followed up in school  Implementation of lesson study cycles  Regular opportunities to reflect in-depth on own practice and that of others to improve further

Feedback from teachers explains how they have individually:  Developed a range of new teaching strategies  Gained more confidence in the teaching of reading skills

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

 Learnt how to use picture books, poetry and short fiction more effectively  Changed from an emphasis of volume of questions to greater depth of dialogue with pupils based on one key question  Enjoyed enabling the pupils to engage with each other and respond to texts they might not otherwise have encountered  Developed professionally by leading training for others in school and observing their sessions  Benefitted hugely from the project’s training sessions towards improved subject knowledge and classroom practice  Implemented the 4XR approach which has allowed a clear structure and progression to planning and teaching  Been enlightened by being able to step back and let children have more ownership of the discussion.  Been supported to facilitate discussion rather than continually question, giving a greater insight into the children’s understanding of the text, the world and each other.  Developed personal knowledge of different texts and authors  Been able to create an atmosphere within the classroom that celebrates and recognises quality literature  The genre challenges have had an impact  Enabled children to speak more readily about reading and shared given recommendations to the class and peers on what to read next.

Feedback from teachers explains how practice has developed in school, through:  Teacher trials in the new approaches given  Adaptation of teacher and class timetables to implement guided reading strategies  Extending the direct impact on Year 6 and Year 3 to other classes  Hearing others being impressed with how other teachers in school have keenly taken on key ideas from disseminated training  A renewed focus on reading across the school and particularly guided reading  Teachers enthusiasm for the guided session ideas and appreciating the need for greater pupil independence  Greater priority being given to reading for pleasure  Regular reading workshops taking place across all year groups  Children more openly engaging with and discussing the books they have read  More effective use of the library  A library which is better stocked, updated and re-organised from the materials shared. Pupil and parental responses to this have been very positive.  Identification of good practice in school through learning walks  Opportunities for primary and secondary teachers to work together fostered an new appreciation of the work undertaken at each stage of the students learning  Sharing practice across key stages led to the emergence of a flightpath detailing the language used for talking about reading and comprehension as well as the selection of tools

Barriers to Achievement and Further Responses  If running the project again, it would be more beneficial for all primary school leaders to be working with the target Year 6 pupils and for all secondary school leaders to be teaching the target Year 7 and 8 pupils, in order that they can more easily and effectively impact on the focus group’s teaching and learning. Teachers working within classes other than the focus year groups are naturally going to have more difficulty in being as effective when they are not teaching the children every day, Although the teacher researchers not working with the target year groups planned to

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

work with teachers and run intervention groups with the focus children, the strategies and approaches shared in the project are not intended as in intervention programme but should ideally be fully integrated into the school day and planning over the week and term to secure best progress.

 Additional comparison schools would be preferable to enable more accurate comparison between larger groups of pupils. The comparison schools would need proper briefing. It would be advisable in future to have a contract with specified expectations but securing a comparison group proved problematic and there was some urgency to do this given time constraints.

 Staff understanding and recognition of data demands as an essential part of the research process. Data was often very hard to obtain and took up a great deal of consultant time to secure the data requested, despite formats being provided and explained during training sessions.

 Some audits could be reviewed to support greater school focus on measurable impact outcomes as well as qualitative response. Audit outcomes need to be used to more immediately to inform school practice as well as research findings.

 The timing of some data collections needed to be better suited to likely pupil response and school events. Conducting the second round of New Group Reading Tests immediately after SATs week, for example, meant that some children saw no purpose in being successful at another test when there is so much emphasis on SATs. However, this timing had been requested by the project schools. As well as improved timing, this could be enhanced in the future by deepening the pupil responsibility and engagement with the research process beyond what was attempted through discussion this time. Pupils could also be encouraged to keep journals and evaluate their progress within the parameters of the project, as well as the teachers.

 Pupil engagement with the research process was not as extensive as intended. Pupil focus groups were solicited for views on the process periodically and this was illuminating and informed the research process. However, tools could have been developed to help them document the learning and teaching process.

11.2 Management and Delivery Processes  How effective were the management and delivery processes used?  Were there any innovative delivery mechanisms and what was the effect of those?  Did the management or delivery mechanisms change during the lifetime of the project and what were the before or after effects?

Delivery Mechanisms and Effectiveness  Training sessions with follow-up in schools worked effectively as a process. Training sessions were well-received and proffered positive verbal responses. Extra sessions were added to the schedule and attendance exceeded the minimum expectation for attendance. With the exception of the final meeting, which came at the end of the summer term 2015, all schools were represented at every meeting.

 The built-in expectation to complete professional reflective journals was initially effective, but it later seemed to challenge participants time-wise and returns tailed off during busy periods in school. Perhaps teachers could have been better supported to see the valued content of these journals by including them more regularly in the

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

training sessions. This could take the form of a regular journal exchange session between pairs of leaders from different schools.

 All leaders had the opportunity to take part in the lesson study model to improve their practice. Staff were encouraged to film each other and to mark out time to analyse what had been delivered, identifying areas of strength in practice and those for potential development. Trials took place in the autumn and were developed into the spring term, but this practice would need to be sustained by school leadership to improve and develop as a regular feature of practice improvement.

11.3 Future Sustainability and Forward Planning  Do you have any plans for the future sustainability of your projects?  What factors or elements are essential for the sustainability of your project?  How have you/will you share your project knowledge and resources?

Continued funding was agreed to extend the project delivery through to the end of December 2015. The extension (the original time frame was for project end in April 2016) will enable greater dissemination of practice, both within the project schools and further afield to other schools. A handbook is being produced explaining the framework and with exemplification of the tools including filmed practice. The tone of the material is friendly and intended to engage busy teachers, providing practical support, but rooted firmly in evidence based research to avoid ‘tips for teachers’.

The website will bring the project to the attention of a wider audience, taster videos exemplifying each stage of the framework will be an invitation to visitors to the site to find out more. The handbook will be available for sale direct from the website and will generate income for the project.

In addition, six teachers have co-authored a series of magazine and journal articles with consultants in order to share the outcomes of their research. To date, articles have been published on the following topics: selecting appropriate texts, using thinking maps to support reading comprehension, developing student questioning, and robust vocabulary instruction to support reading comprehension. Further articles are in the pipeline and will cover other aspect addressed by the project including dialogic teaching, syntactic processing, engagement and motivation and publication has been arranged with English Association magazine English 4 – 11 and with Teach Primary. In terms of a sequence of publishing the practical articles that are most likely to be read by class teachers were prioritised as this is the most effective way of disseminating information. Feedback from the articles has led directly to other contacts requesting further information including the schools in London Haringey where the February conference will take place and schools in Barnet and Bexley. Interest has also come from further afield.

A conference in May 2016 to be held at UCL, ‘Developing Excellence in Reading’, will provide an opportunity to showcase the project outcomes along with other initiatives.

Continued school focus and project leadership will be essential factors needed for longer term sustainability and development of progress within each of the project schools, independently and as a group. It has been suggested that further school group meetings take place in order to enhance project outcomes and these will become part of the continued work during the autumn term of 2015.

12. Final Report Conclusion

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Given the relatively short time scale for delivery, the project achieved demonstrable changes in teachers’ practice and increased subject knowledge. Pupil reading scores were raised beyond expected progress as measured using a standardised test. Furthermore, the tools developed will help to sustain that change and also be of wider use across London schools and further afield. Although the project commenced prior to announcements regarding the assessment in the current National Curriculum, the pedagogy developed suggests what a mastery model in English might look like. Though we haven’t done so in this report, there is scope for further discussion about the similarities and differences in what this means in different subject areas. It is a topical debate, which we are in a position to contribute to.

Key findings for assessment of project impact

Results from the standardised test scores show a significant increase across measures of fluency, vocabulary and comprehension, suggesting that the 4XR pedagogic framework developed as a result of this project and the selection of accompanying evidence based strategies had the desired impact on raising students’ achievements in reading overall. This data gathered from within However, as there was insufficient return from a control group there is further work to be done in establishing the efficacy of this framework. Furthermore, the project was carried out in schools which share a similar demographic and it is recommended that this be further tested in schools reflecting a greater ethnic and cultural mix.

The relatively short delivery period for working directly with teachers in classrooms (October 2014 – July 2015) means that while the lead teachers’ subject knowledge was increased, as illustrated by the results of the teacher perception scales and semi-structured interviews, pre The project used and post-delivery, there is further work to be done in ensuring this practice is further developed and sustained. The production of the toolkit, comprising handbook, DVD and website will support the continuing development in the project schools.

The focus of this project was on the developing approaches that suited the needs of the highest attaining readers, however, one of the incidental insights was that the framework appeared to benefit students who experienced difficulty with reading. This feedback game from teacher interviews and was not subject to analysis of quantitative data. It is therefore recommended that further studies look more specifically at the benefits to different groups of students.

Some aspects of the framework were better understood and developed in the lessons observed. In particular, teachers demonstrated an appreciation of making good assessments of students’ prior knowledge and understanding, using the recommended exploratory approaches and tools such as graphic organisers to expose levels of understanding in order to plan work, usually starting at a much higher level. However, there was less evidence of reflecting with the students in order to develop metacognition. This is to be expected given that and wide repertoire of tools was introduced over the course of the project. Some of the lead teachers recognised this and identified it as a target for personal and professional development going forward.

Some dissemination activity has already taken place in other London Boroughs as well as some areas outside the GLA. Feedback from teachers in these areas helps to further and develop and refine the framework with wider exemplification material from different aged students and groups. It is recommended that the website is developed as a hub where teachers can share practice, seek advice and support from colleagues.

The notion of a flightpath of learning or common language across year groups and key stages was beginning to emerge as the delivery stage of the project came to completion.

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

One of the strengths of the project is that it allowed this understanding to emerge out of conversations with primary and secondary teachers working together. This avoided the potential problem of one group trying to impose their theories of learning on the other. A well-conceived flightpath would allow teachers to share understanding of instructional language (for instance, we found that in the group there were many interpretations of the words such as analysis, appreciation, critical etc.) and it would also build on a set of common tools such as a restricted set of graphic organisers which would maintain the same principles but be increase in sophistication to meet the needs of students at different stages of their learning and understanding. It is recommended that this is an area for further development and research.

The project used a mix of approaches including workshops, coaching and lesson study. During the delivery period it was expected that teachers complete three cycles of lesson study. This was conducted with carrying degrees of success, due in part to constraints of the delivery period. Lesson study was introduced towards the end of the Autumn term giving teachers in effect just the spring term before the period Standard Tests to work in this way. If conducting the project again, the principles of lesson study would have been made clearer earlier in the project.

Consultants working alongside teachers in the classroom proved to be appreciated by teachers and effective in moving practice on, particularly when it involved an element of joint planning and teaching and afforded teachers’ time and space to observe and feedback. It is important to note that it was made clear that the approach was not to be regarded as ‘demonstration’ but providing a reflective space for sharing insights, which teachers and consultants found mutually beneficial. Although this was not an area of specific investigation for this project, there is scope, particularly in the context of Teaching School Alliances, for further investigation into the way teachers working together move forward their own practice and the impact of outside influences.

Student voices was an important part of the process. It was solicited periodically through the delivery phase and in the pre and post test phase. Student reflections were illuminating and were instrumental in the design of the training and the teaching framework. Nevertheless more robust mechanisms for involving students in the research process could have been developed. If undertaking this project again, or a similar project in the future student journal would be introduced to document the process. Rather than create a website at the end, with more lead-in time this at the outset and developed an app for

The greatest disappointment was the failure to establish an effective control group as this has weakened the strength of the arguments about the efficacy of the 4XR framework and associated teaching strategies. The insight and recommendation here is to invest more time in establishing a control and setting up a contract with written expectations and deliverable outcomes.

Although the perception data collected from teachers was very rich and showed positive results. A replication of this work in future could include a competence test to strengthen the findings by providing objective evidence to enhance the subjective data.

In school coaching and observation was easier to establish in the primary rather than the secondary schools. In the secondary school, mechanisms for cross year group and cross subject training and planning seemed to create logistic issues. Teachers appeared to feel less empowered or able to influence the work of other departments. This is more of an institutional observation than a reflection on the individual teachers involved in the project, all of whom were able to discuss changes in their own practice. Initially, there was a sense shared by both primary and secondary teachers, that the secondary teachers were the ‘experts’ By the end of the project a more open and realistic appreciation of the strengths

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

and weaknesses of teachers in both phases as well as individual school and teacher strengths facilitated a more productive sharing of experience and learning. At the outset, meetings with senior leaders to put in place a framework for in-house development and training would be required.

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Project Theory of Change p50

Appendix 2 Evaluation Framework p51

Appendix 3 Student data collection p55

Appendix 4 Reading perception scale p56

Appendix 5 Student reading survey p57

Appendix 6 Student focus group prompts p60

Appendix 7 Reading environment audit p62

Appendix 8 Teacher perception scale p66

Appendix 9 Library audit field notes p69

Appendix 10 ‘Teachers as Readers’ Questionnaire p72

Appendix 11 Teaching observation schedule p78

Appendix 12 NGRT data analysis p80

Appendix 13 Teacher perception, pre delivery p82

Appendix 14 Teacher perception, post delivery p84

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

LSEFR1216 “Developing excellence in the teaching of reading for meaning; extending students’ skills in understanding L6 and above texts, including inferring from different layers of meaning”

Evaluation Framework

OUTCOMES INDICATORS BASELINE DATA IMPACT DATA TEACHER T1. Honed T1a. T1.a teacher interviews and perception schedule 1.a teacher interviews and OUTCOMES and refined teachers conducted May/June 2014 perception schedule conducted pedagogical report May 2015 skills which increased Using the questionnaires devised by UKLA for the most knowledge teachers as Readers research and reported in the Using the questionnaires devised successfully and journal of literacy volume 43, issue 1 April 2009 by UKLA for the teachers as develop confidence in Readers research and reported in higher order identifying the the journal of literacy volume 43, reading with best 1.b. videoed lessons with teacher commentary issue 1 April 2009 highest pedagogical and analysis June 2014 attaining moves, readers in strategies Using VRSD developed by the SPRINT project years 5-9 and tools to Moyles et al (2003) and refined for guided reading achieve sessions by Challen (2007) 1.b. videoed lessons with teacher T2.b. Videoed commentary and analysis June Lesson 2015 teachers analysis 1.c. Lesson observation schedules Using VRSD developed by the shows Five principles of dialogic teaching SPRINT project Moyles et al Critical Robin Alexander (2003) and refined for guided reflection on reading sessions by Challen teaching (2007) strengths and areas for improvement. 1.c lesson observation schedules

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Wider range Using five principles of dialogic of strategies teaching Robin Alexander used and secure identification of the most appropriate tools/activities for delivering the strategies. T1c. Teaching observations and lesson study

T2. T2. Knowledge Confidence in Subject knowledge audit and discussing application salient of skills features of drawn from research, national and applying and international evaluating research through into reading. ongoing half termly meetings T3. T3.a T3. Teacher interviews and perception scales T3. Teacher interviews and Developme Teachers conducted May/June 2014 perception scales conducted May nt of subject report 2015

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

knowledge confidence in including increased the levels of knowledge subject T3.b audit of existing resources May/June 2014 of most knowledge Developed from National Literacy Trust Audit but appropriate and greater with the addition of sections specifically designed T3.b audit of resources texts and awareness of to look at the reading material available to the June 2015 resources appropriate highest attaining readers. Developed from National Literacy for texts Trust Audit but with the addition of developing sections specifically designed to higher order T3.b look at the reading material reading with evidence of available to the highest attaining highest increased readers. attaining and more readers targeted range of texts PUPIL P1. P1.a greater P1.a Trend data from 3 previous years SATs P1.a SATs scores 2015 OUTCOMES Increased number of results collected for all year 5 in target schools P1.b standardised scores from numbers of pupils and the matched control group. repeat New Group Reading Test pupils achieving administered July 2015 achieving level 5 and 6 P1.b Standardised scores from New Group higher at year six in Reading Test administered July 2014 for year 5, 6 http://www.gl- levels of relation to and 7 (will be year 6, 7 and 8 during the year of assessment.co.uk/products/new- reading at previous delivery) group-reading-test the end of years key stage 2 http://www.gl-assessment.co.uk/products/new- and in Key P1. b group-reading-test Stage 3 Increase beyond that normally expected one year and in

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

comparison to the matched control group on standardised group reading test scores (New Group Reading Test)

P2. P2.Evidence P2 Pupil perception surveys and scales P2. Pupil perception surveys and Increased of increased conducted may 2014 scales conducted May 2015 reading reading , volume, wider Validated perception scales used RSPS by Henk Validated perception scales used wider choices, and Melnick (1995) RSPS by Henk and Melnick reading and greater (1995) more independenc positive e and attitudes to increased reading to positive impact on attitudes the achievemen t of higher levels in years 6 up WIDER S1. S1 SCHOOL Production Accessibility Time frame in place for development of toolkit and Goals identified on the time frame SYSTEM of toolkit of toolkit for collection of case studies and assets such as met. OUTCOMES and all teachers video

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

resources Toolkit published and available designed on online. the basis of evidence of the efficacy of the tools and strategies S2 Systemic S2 adoption of Implementati Action planning in each school. Relating school Goals identified in the action effective on of development plan to the project principles and to plans met at each stage of review. pedagogy professional teacher professional development. September and development 2014 strategies training and periodic Half termly monitoring of action plans with literacy review leads and SLT

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Data collection: pupils’ perception, reading interests and experience

Three tools were used pre and post-delivery to collect data toward the pupils’ targets

Data collection was designed to provide information on the following aspects of children’s reading:

 Perception of self as a reader (performance, social feedback, comparison, progress, physiological state)  Reading preferences (range of reading, volume of reading)  Range of reading undertaken  Quantity of reading undertaken  Connections and differences between reading at home and reading at school  The reader’s approach to challenge  Readers self- awareness of the strategies they use to elicit meaning

Tools used

1: Perception scale adapted from Henk and Melnick (1995) Completed individually

2. Reading survey: written responses completed individually. The survey was completed section by section with the researcher checking understanding at each stage. No prompts were given with how to answer only clarification of the instructions.

3: Focus group discussion conducted with consultants to probe responses and obtain supplementary information

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

READING PERCEPTION SCALE

Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly agree disagree I think that I am a good reader My teacher thinks my reading is good I understand what I am reading better than most of the other children in my class I like finding new words when I am reading I like reading fiction I feel happy when I am reading I know the meanings of more words than most children of my age I like to talk about the book I am reading I always understand what I am reading I think reading is relaxing I read more than most children I enjoy factual books People in my family think I am a good reader I always choose my own books I recognise more words than I used to I read more than I used to Children in my class think I have good ideas about the book we are reading I feel intelligent when I am reading I like reading poetry My teacher listens to my ideas I am getting better at reading I feel comfortable when I am reading I read faster than I used to I enjoy reading aloud in class I understand what I read better than I could before When I read, I need less help than I used to When I am reading, I feel calm Other children think I am a good reader

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

READING SURVEY

READING AT HOME

1) Which of the following do you read outside of school more than once a month? (You can tick more than 1)

Websites (general) Blogging/networking websites (such as MySpace, MSN Messenger) Newspapers Magazines Graphic novels or comics Emails Fiction Poetry Factual books Manuals/instructions None of these

2) How often do you read out of school? (Tick one box only)

Every day, or almost every day Once or twice a week Once or twice a month Never or almost never

3) Which of the following do the adults at home encourage you to read? (you can tick more than 1 box)

Websites (general) Blogging/networking websites (such as MySpace, MSN Messenger) Newspapers and magazines Graphic novels or comics Emails Fiction Poetry Factual books Manuals/instructions None of these

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

READING AT SCHOOL

4) How often do you read in school? (Tick one box only)

Every day, or almost every day Once or twice a week Once or twice a month Never or almost never

5) Which of the following does your teacher encourage you to read at school? You may tick more than 1

Websites (general) Blogging/networking websites (such as MySpace, MSN Messenger) Newspapers and magazines Graphic novels or comics Emails Fiction books Poetry Factual books Manuals/instructions None of these Not sure

Reading Persistence

3) What are you most likely to do when you find a book that you are reading difficult?

Stop reading and go and do something entirely different Stop reading it and choose something less difficult Stop reading for a while and go back to it later Ask someone to help me Keep reading, I can usually work it out in the end

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Focus Group Discussion (audio recorded)

Students were invited to bring books to the focus group

 a book they were reading at home

 a book they were reading at school

Authors and titles were collected. The students explained their choices and talked about reading preferences.

Prompts

Reading choices

 How did you choose the books you have brought with you today?

 Does anyone at home or school recommend books for you to read? Who?

 What do you prefer to read?

 Do you ever read books that you find difficult or challenging?

 Where do you find books to read in school?

 How easy or difficult is to find books that you would like to read in school?

 How easy or difficult is it to find books that you would like to read at home?

 Do you prefer reading at home or school? Why?

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Data collection: Teachers

Tools used to collect data from teachers covered 4 areas

1. Tools designed to build a picture of the context. The extent to which the teaching of reading is situated within a reading culture that range of resources available and match the needs of the target group as well as the needs of the general student population.  Reading environment audit  Photo walk and field notes  Library audit

2. Tools designed to ascertain teachers confidence as teachers of reading, particularly of working with groups of high attaining reader Tools included  Teacher perception scale

3..Tools designed to explore teachers reading preferences, habits and knowledge of children’s literature  ‘Teachers as Readers’ questionnaire (UKLA 2007)

3. Semi-structured interview (with prompts and audio recorded) To further probe issues arising from responses to tools used in 1 - 3

4. Observation schedule to provide a focus for observing teaching (Alexander 2013)

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

6UP Reading Environment Audit

SCHOOL: DATE:

TEACHER: YR GROUP

Organisation Comments Classroom Library Texts accessible through appropriate shelving Texts clearly labelled through recognised system Display has a focus e.g. topic. theme, author Material available daily Recognised place for pupil book recommendations Reading challenges available Top 10 Reads style posters Multiple sets of books for guided or group reading available at times outside of these sessions Pupil involvement in upkeep

Governor/parent involvement in upkeep

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Reading Area Comments Classroom Library Class style chairs Tables Comfy chairs, armchairs, sofas, floor cushions Storyteller chair Carpeted, plants, drapes Poems and/or story extracts displayed on walls Adequate space in setting or alternative provided Area tidy and generally inviting Notice board area and/or flipchart and pens for pupil- to-pupil communication Pupil book review journal accessible

Range of Genre and Format Comments Classroom Library (Consider 6UP level suitability throughout) Recognised classic fiction e.g. Dickens, Carroll, Nesbit, Tolkien Classic fiction adaptations Historical fiction Sci-Fi Mystery e.g. Sherlock Holmes Adventure Myths and Legends Comedy

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Spy thriller Fantasy Chillers Short story collections/ Quick reads Adaptations of traditional tales in new forms and from changing perspectives Graphic novels High quality picture books e.g. Anthony Browne, Colin Thompson, Raymond Briggs Comics Stories from a wide range of other cultures Plays, including Shakespeare Humorous poetry Narrative poetry Other verse forms Poetry by the same author Poetry collections from different authors

Range of Genre and Format Dual language books/ MFL Joke books Autobiography/ Biography Children’s newspapers Magazines Children’s own published texts

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Subject-based non-fiction e.g. travel books, historical Encyclopaedias Higher level dictionaries, appropriate to texts read Collection of books related to a class theme Other collections available e.g. books by the same author, books in a series Talking texts (via earphones) Computers/ laptops Display of recommended web links appropriate to a topic area, theme, author or poet Email facilities e.g. inter-school Collection of appropriate film texts - fiction Collection of appropriate film texts – non-fiction Espresso or similar subject-based, multi-media information software

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

6UP Teacher Perception Scale

SCHOOL: DATE:

TEACHER: YR GROUP:

Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree agree I am confident in the use of language terminology and feel able to give clear examples when explaining terms to children

I am skilled in discussing how the writer’s choice of language have contributed to the effect of a passage or the text overall

I am able to recognise when and how structural features contribute to theme, purpose or the effect of writing on the reader

I have good knowledge of a wide range of texts from different periods, appropriate for higher attaining pupils

I have good knowledge of a wide range of suitable texts from different genres, including IT and multi-modal sources, such as graphic novels and film

Due to my experience, I can confidently discuss and compare texts from across different periods and genres

I employ a wide range of teaching strategies to address the needs of children’s higher order reading

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

I am confident in the assessment of reading

I can usually decide on the best strategy to use in order to move higher attaining children forward with their reading

I can critically reflect on what I have seen and heard from the children in order to guide future tools for teaching

I am able to identify key strengths and areas for development in my own teaching of reading

I am able to identify key strengths and areas for development in others’ teaching of reading

I regularly engage with school data and recognise how to use pupil data outcomes to inform my teaching

I apply clear measures in reflection of my own practice

I am fully conversant with the features and requirements of research processes

I can make effective evaluations of impact using both qualitative and quantitative data

I have a sound understanding of current international reading research

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

If ever I have free time at home, I regularly choose to read fiction for pleasure

If ever I have free time at home, I regularly choose to read non-fiction for pleasure

If ever I have free time at home, I regularly choose to read information websites for pleasure

If ever I have free time at home, I regularly choose to watch movies for pleasure

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

6UP Library Audit: field notes

SCHOOL: DATE:

Library Management  Is the overall management and maintenance of the library a regular agenda item for review?  Is there a designated library lead in school?

Library Funding  Is there an annual budget for the library?  Is it reliant on parental involvement and fund raising?  Who manages the allocated budget?

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Stock selection  How are library gaps identified?  Who chooses stock  To what extent are pupils and parents involved  What links are made to the student reading preferences (fiction and non-fiction)

Stock management  Is there a stock management system in place  How are links made between library and class collections  Is there an exchange of stock between classrooms? Are book collections refreshed periodically?

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Access and reader development  How is the library used to support lessons?  What access do students have to the library outside lesson time?  What types of activity take place in the library?  Is it a lending or a reference collection?

Staffing  Who staffs the library?  Are students involved in the running of the library? If so, do they receive training?

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

TEACHERS AS READERS QUESTIONNAIRE

School Name

Teacher’s Name

Year group currently taught Number of years teaching Are of responsibility

1 What was your favourite book that you read as a child?

2. What have you read recently for your own pleasure? Please indicate by ticking if this was Within the last month

Within the last 3 months

Within the last 6 months

Over 6 months ago

3 What is the most important book you have ever read?

4 Where do you usually obtain Library books for your own reading? Bookshop Please indicate by ticking. On-line bookshop You may tick more than one, From friends

Other (please specify)

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

5 Do you visit your local library with Yes your students? No Please delete as appropriate If yes, please specify the purpose of the visits

If yes, when did you last visit the Within the last month local library with your students? Within the last 3 months Please tick Within the last 6 months

Over 6 months ago

6 What was the last book that you read completely (or with small cuts) to your class for pleasure? When did you read this? Within the last week

Please tick Within the last half term

Within the last term

Within the last year

Not read How frequently do you read aloud to your class? Daily

Please tick Weekly

Monthly

Less frequently

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

7 List 6 ‘good’ children’s fiction authors

8 List 6 ‘good’ children’s poets

9 List 6 ‘good’ children’s picture book authors/illustrators

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

10 How do you decide which Personal knowledge/interest children’s books to use in the classroom? Students recommendations

Please tick Library service recommendations

You may tick more than one Bookseller recommendation

Subject leader’s recommendations

Other teacher’s recommendations

Other (please specify)

11 Do you import books on the IWB Yes (interactive whiteboard)? No Please delete as appropriate If yes, please give details

12 Do you use publishers’ prepared Yes materials to support the teaching of reading? No

Please delete as appropriate If yes, please give details of materials used

How frequently do you use them? Daily

Weekly

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Monthly

Rank the following statements in order of importance using the scale 1 – 6 1 is the most important 6 is the least important

Literature is important because: It develops reading

It develops writing

It widens knowledge

It engages the emotions

It develops the imagination

It transmits cultural values

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Observation Schedule TEACHER/MENTOR MONITORING FRAMEWORK

DIALOGIC ESSENTIALS

CONTENT DEVELOPMENT TARGETS See Towards Dialogic Teaching Essentials Interactions Do they encourage students to think, and to think in different ways?

Questions Do they invite more than simple recall?

Answers Are they justified, followed up and built upon rather than merely received?

Feedback Does it inform and lead thinking forward as well as encourage? Is it reciprocal (pupil-teacher as well as teacher-pupil)?

Contributions Are they extended rather than abbreviated/fragmented?

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

Exchanges Do exchanges chain together into coherent and deepening lines of enquiry? Discussion and argumentation Do they probe and challenge rather than accept responses without question?

Engagement with subject Does it liberate classroom discourse from the safe and conventional?

Classroom organisation, climate and relationships Are grouping, space and time managed so as to facilitate and maximise the above

Reading Comprehension additional notes

language stinguish between fact and fiction information from non-fiction they read and hear read understanding of what they read views

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

8.2 2014-15 NGRT Data Comparison by Standardised Score

Average Average Scores Over Scores Over Primary Primary 6UP Comparison Group Group

2014 2015 Change 2014 2015 Change ALL 110.54 114.68 + 4.14 ALL 119.0 117.4 - 1.6 Male 108.58 112.5 + 3.92 Male 121.6 117.6 - 4.0 Female 112.44 116.93 + 4.49 Female 116.8 117.3 + 0.5

School 1 School 2

2014 2015 Change 2014 2015 Change ALL 116.9 122.9 + 6.0 ALL 109.9 110.9 + 1.0 Male 115.6 123.6 + 8.0 Male 107.2 111.1 + 3.9 Female 118.1 122.21 + 4.1 Female 112.7 110.7 - 2.0

School 3 School 4

2014 2015 Change 2014 2015 Change ALL 109.2 111.9 + 2.7 ALL 98.5 102.8 + 4.3 Male 107.6 108.1 + 0.5 Male 89.3 92.7 + 3.4 Female 111.9 117.6 + 5.7 Female 108.3 112.9 + 4.6

School 4 School 6

2014 2015 Change 2014 2015 Change ALL 115.2 117.5 + 2.3 ALL 108.3 115.1 + 6.8 Male 114.4 117.3 + 2.9 Male 105.5 112.5 + 7.0 Female 116.0 117.7 + 1.7 Female 110.2 116.9 + 6.7

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

School 7 School 8

2014 2015 Change 2014 2015 Change ALL 113.1 118.6 + 5.5 ALL 113.2 117.7 + 4.5 Male 116.8 121.4 + 4.6 Male 112.2 113.3 + 1.1 Female 108.1 114.6 + 6.5 Female 114.2 122.8 + 8.6

School 9

2014 2015 Change ALL 111.8 111.7 - 0.1 Male 113.0 111.9 - 1.1 Female 110.4 111.5 + 1.1

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

8.1 Analysis of Teacher Audit Questions Sample Schools - 17 leaders - June 2014

Green = Strong majority positive return (11+ agree or above)

Amber = Of concern (8 undecided or below)

Red = Area for Development (10+ undecided or below)

Strongly Agree Undecide Disagree Strongly agree d disagree T1: I am confident in the use of language terminology and feel able to give clear examples 4 7 3 3 when explaining terms to children

T1: I am skilled in discussing how the writer’s choice of language have contributed to the 3 5 6 3 effect of a passage or the text overall

T1: I am able to recognise when and how structural features contribute to theme, purpose 4 7 4 2 or the effect of writing on the reader

T1: I employ a wide range of teaching strategies to address the needs of children’s higher 1 7 6 3 order reading

T1: I am confident in the assessment of reading 3 7 4 3

T1: I can usually decide on the best strategy to use in order to move higher attaining 2 5 5 5 children forward with their reading

T1: I can critically reflect on what I have seen and heard from the children in order to guide 4 6 5 2 future tools for teaching

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

T1: I am able to identify key strengths and areas for development in my own teaching of 4 7 4 2 reading

T1: I am able to identify key strengths and areas for development in others’ teaching of 2 6 5 4 reading

T2: I regularly engage with school data and recognise how to use pupil data outcomes to 3 10 4 inform my teaching

T2: I apply clear measures in reflection of my own practice 1 7 8 1 T2: I am fully conversant with the features and requirements of research processes 2 5 10

T2: I can make effective evaluations of impact using both qualitative and quantitative data 1 10 6

T2: I have a sound understanding of current international reading research 3 7 7 T3: I have good knowledge of a wide range of texts from different periods, appropriate for 4 5 6 2 higher attaining pupils

T3: I have good knowledge of a wide range of suitable texts from different genres, including 3 4 7 3 IT and multi-modal sources, such as graphic novels and film

T3: Due to my experience, I can confidently discuss and compare texts from across 3 6 8 different periods and genres

If ever I have free time at home, I regularly choose to read fiction for pleasure 8 5 3 1

If ever I have free time at home, I regularly choose to read non-fiction for pleasure 5 4 4 4

If ever I have free time at home, I regularly choose to read information websites for pleasure 1 3 3 8 2

If ever I have free time at home, I regularly choose to watch movies for pleasure 10 4 2 1

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

8.1 Analysis of Teacher Audit Questions Sample Schools - 17 leaders - June 2015

Green = Strong majority positive return (11+ agree or above)

Amber = Of concern (8 undecided or below)

Red = Area for Development (10+ undecided or below)

Strongly Agree Undecide Disagree Strongly agree d disagree T1: I am confident in the use of language terminology and feel able to give clear examples when 10 4 3 explaining terms to children

T1: I am skilled in discussing how the writer’s choice of language have contributed to the effect of a 7 4 4 2 passage or the text overall

T1: I am able to recognise when and how structural features contribute to theme, purpose or the 4 9 3 1 effect of writing on the reader

T1: I employ a wide range of teaching strategies to address the needs of children’s higher order 10 4 3 reading

T1: I am confident in the assessment of reading 7 8 2

T1: I can usually decide on the best strategy to use in order to move higher attaining children 10 4 3 forward with their reading

T1: I can critically reflect on what I have seen and heard from the children in order to guide future 11 5 2 tools for teaching

London Schools Excellence Fund: LSFER1216: 6UP Developing Excellence in Reading Final Report

T1: I am able to identify key strengths and areas for development in my own teaching of reading 9 5 3

T1: I am able to identify key strengths and areas for development in others’ teaching of reading 8 6 3

T2: I regularly engage with school data and recognise how to use pupil data outcomes to inform my 10 5 2 teaching

T2: I apply clear measures in reflection of my own practice 10 4 3 T2: I am fully conversant with the features and requirements of research processes 2 10 5

T2: I can make effective evaluations of impact using both qualitative and quantitative data 2 9 5 1

T2: I have a sound understanding of current international reading research 2 6 5 4 T3: I have good knowledge of a wide range of texts from different periods, appropriate for higher 5 7 3 2 attaining pupils

T3: I have good knowledge of a wide range of suitable texts from different genres, including IT and 2 4 7 4 multi-modal sources, such as graphic novels and film

T3: Due to my experience, I can confidently discuss and compare texts from across different periods 3 6 6 2 and genres

If ever I have free time at home, I regularly choose to read fiction for pleasure 10 2 If ever I have free time at home, I regularly choose to read non-fiction for pleasure 3 1 3

If ever I have free time at home, I regularly choose to read information websites for pleasure 2 2 3

If ever I have free time at home, I regularly choose to watch movies for pleasure 2 3 1 1