Quality Review CV1
Academic Year 2015-16
Consistency across the Hubs
During the last academic year there were a small number of inconsistencies in the operation of each hub. These were largely an inconsistent use of systems and templates; a few individual advisers which were not fully clear about the increased expectations of their work and performance. In addition, the level of quality assurance of reports varied in focus.
During the Autumn Term (2015) significant changes were made to practice making use of the new online system - Rhwyd. Detailed and very rigorous feedback and support was given on report monitoring and additional training on expectations was given at regional and hub level. All reporting templates were transferred to Rhwyd and clear concise guidance was issued and followed.
This has led to significant improvements in compliance, consistency and quality.
Quality Assurance of Reports
The quality assurance process within each hub has significantly improved. All Challenge Adviser reports were quality assured by line managers andlive feedback was provided on the content and quality of the report writing. This has impacted on greater accuracy and more evaluative reports in core visits.
Strengths
Timeliness – Nearly all reports were completed within a tight time frame and were available for QA
Consistency of templates – All reports used the ERW agreed template.
Most reports are detailed and show good knowledge of the school and its performance.
Nearly all reports include effective data analysis to evaluate progress on standards.
In the majority of reports, the author makes effective reference to ERW activity in the school to corroborate judgements.
In the best reports there is clear reference to the correlation between raising standards and improving provision.
In the best reports data analysis makes clear reference to sub groups, especiallyeFSMand LAC pupils.
Most reports are clear and precise.
Nearly all reports outline the package of support most likely to improve outcomes.
What needed improving?
In a minority of reports, strengths are not signposted sufficiently.
A minority of reports do not highlightimpacton pupil progress.
A few reports make incorrect use of % gain rather than % point change
In a minority of reports there is too much focus on describing provision and reports do not evaluate the quality of provision.
In a minority or reports,Estynterminology to indicate quantity (included in the ERW guidance) is not used effectively to support and clarify judgement.
In a few reports there is a mismatch between judgement on progress and the commentary in the report.
A few reports lack sufficient detail to support the evaluation. This could be strengthened e.g. “For example….”
In a few reports there is too much focus on providing the data rather than evaluating the progress.
In a few LAs, the agreed layout was not adhered to.
(Further detail: Hub Leads QA Reports).