An evaluation of School Centre

a web-based ICT tool

designed by Granada Learning

to support School Development Planning

Executive Summary
School Centre software was prepared for evaluation in 8 schools in Northern Ireland. The pilot ran from April to June 2005. The pilot was supported by RTU and Granada staff and involved face-to-face workshops, schools visits and online support.
All schools contributed to the Evaluation and adopted a variety of approaches and indeed in some cases involved all teachers in the pilot. Pilot schools completed an evaluation questionnaire and allocated a grade to four headings, extracted from the TTI document, on how “School Centre” assisted them in the school development planning process. The overall grade allocated by schools was 1-2. Schools had the opportunity to share their experiences at an Evaluation Day hosted by the RTU on 16 June 2005. Also attending the Evaluation Day were representatives of the following organisations: DE, ELBs, CCMS, C2k, GTC, CCEA and SDP Support Dublin
Background to SDP in NI
The Department of Education Circular No 2005/19 issued on 22 June 2005 advised schools that:
“with effect from 1 September 2004, regulations will be in place to require the Board of Governors of a grant-aided school to prepare and maintain a school development plan. The regulations have been made under Articles 13 (3) and 90 (3) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.”
“The Education (School Development Plans) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 apply to all school development plans prepared after 1 September 2005 and aim to bring consistency to the content of school development plans and to provide a context and framework within which the school can monitor, evaluate and improve the nature of its curricular and other provision and the standards achieved by its pupils. An effective plan will assist the school in identifying and building on its strengths and identifying its areas for improvement so that these can be addressed. In doing so, it offers an effective way to harness the collective experience of the teachers, to promote teamwork, and to plan for and implement change for improvement.”
“The regulations detail the following:
§  Matters to be dealt with by a school development plan;
§  The period for which a school development plan is to have effect;
§  Publication of school development plan and
§  Revision of a school development plan.”

Background to RTU School Development Planning –

“School Centre” Evaluation

Granada Learning has been developing ICT tools to support school development planning. The software is called “School Centre” and uses a secure website which is designed to streamline the school development and improvement planning process. Schools in seven local education authorities in England are currently using this software, for example Cornwall LEA. It is understood that the software has been modified to meet the specific needs of individual LEAs.
Costs: Currently the software is available to individual schools in England on the following basis:
Number of pupils / Costs per year
<99 / £500
100 – 199 / £800
200 - 399 / £1000
400 – 699 / £1200
700 – 899 / £1500
900 - 1499 / £1700
1500+ / £2200
In Addition:
§  There is a one off set-up cost of £500 (Primary) and £1000 (Post-Primary)
§  The above does not take account of training or support
Please find attached detailed costs as an example of a regional School Centre roll-out strategy for Northern Ireland.
Following discussions between C2k, Granada Learning and RTU it was agreed that a pilot project would run during the summer term of 2005 with a group of 10 schools, from both the primary and post-primary sectors, and as far as practically possible, representing a cross-section of the education community.
The project aims were to evaluate the suitability of the online tool to support the school development planning process in:
§  encouraging effective leadership;
§  streamlining the school development planning process;
§  reducing the bureaucratic burden;
§  promoting a collaborative approach to sdp;
§  facilitating a dynamic approach to the sdp process; and
§  exploring the potential of developing a fully customised version of school centre for Northern Ireland.
The schools were selected in consultation with representatives of the Education and Library Board CASS and the RTU. The schools who agreed to take part in the pilot were:
§  Holy Trinity Primary, Cookstown
§  Ballymena Primary
§  Termoncanice Primary, Limavady
§  Dundonald Primary, Belfast
§  Belfast Girls Model
§  St John’s High, Dromore, Omagh
§  Loughshore Educational Resource Centre, Belfast
§  St Mary’s Grammar, Magherafelt

Timeline/Schedule Of Activities And Training

Date / Location / Activity
11 March 2005
2 – 3.30 pm / RTU / Information session for Principals
12 April 2005
9.30 – 3 pm / Antrim Board Centre /

Workshop session

Primary Principals and one or two other staff members per school who will be working on the pilot
13 April 2005
9.30 – 3 pm / Antrim Board Centre /

Workshop session

Post-Primary Principal and 3 other staff members per school who will be working on the pilot
13 April – 9 May / School / School based work on SDP
Ongoing support via telephone
9 May – 13 May / School / Visit to individual schools by RTU and School Centre staff
16 May – 15 June / School / School based work on SDP
16 June / RTU / Presentations by schools
The main reference document used to guide the schools was the Together Towards Improvement (TTI) document, which was produced by the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI). This document formed the basis of the online working environment and encouraged self-evaluation as a starting point for the development planning process within “School Centre”. The TTI document was also used to structure the RTU Evaluation Questionnaire completed by the schools at the end of the pilot.
In addition, preparation for the School Centre pilot included providing access to a range of online resources selected to support school development planning. The documents provided in the Resource Bank were as follows:
School Centre Shared Resource Bank : Resource Description
Together Towards Improvement (ETI)
Empowering Schools Strategy (DENI)
Investors in People
DENI Self-Evaluation guide (DENI)
Evaluating Mathematics in Post Primary (DENI)
Evaluating Geography in Post Primary (DENI)
Evaluating English in Post Primary (DENI)
Evaluating Home Economics in Post Primary (DENI)
Evaluating Modern Languages in Post Primary (DENI)
Evaluating Music in Post Primary (DENI)
Evaluating Pastoral Care in Post Primary (DENI)
Evaluating Physical Education in Post Primary (DENI)
Evaluating Religious Education in Post Primary (DENI)
Evaluating Science in Post Primary (DENI)
Evaluating Technology and Design in Post Primary (DENI)
Evaluating Art and Design in Post Primary (DENI)
Evaluating History in Post Primary (DENI)
RTU School Centre Evaluation Questionnaire (RTU)
School Centre Quick Start Guide (Skills Factory)
In planning for this pilot, an initial exercise involved the search for other software programmes/tools specifically designed to support school development planning. This search did not find any application, which appeared to perform the same range of functions as is found in “School Centre”.
Results/evidence from pilot in NI
The RTU extracted four relevant sections from the TTI document and asked Pilot Schools to consider how “School Centre” assisted them in the school development planning process. The four sections were:

Effectiveness of the Principal

§  providing direction for the school community;
§  setting goals and realistic expectations;
§  efficient management of human, financial and material resources, matched to the school’s needs and priorities;
§  effective communication with staff and others within the school community;
§  promoting constructive working relationships among the staff and generating a strong sense of team spirit;
§  involving the staff appropriately in decision-making and drawing on the expertise and special interests of individuals in developing the work of the school.
Effectiveness of teachers with specific responsibilities
§  matching the needs of the school and the nature and range of delegated responsibilities;
§  keeping teachers informed of their specific responsibilities and ensuring that they have a full understanding of what these entail;
§  promoting and contributing constructively to teamwork in order to develop aspects of the school’s provision.

Monitoring and Evaluation

§  enabling valid judgements to be made about the quality of the school’s provision;
§  cross-referencing evidence from both internal and external sources, including C2k {CLASS};
§  enabling teachers to reflect in a self-critical way on their own practice;
§  enabling teachers to reflect and collaborate as a member of a team to monitor and evaluate the work of the school as a whole;
§  enabling teachers to refine planning and prepare action plans to meet the outcomes of monitoring and evaluation.
Action to Improve Learning
§  systematically focusing on the work of the pupils and the standards they achieve, in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses and determine appropriate priorities and targets for development;
§  identifying the school’s priorities for development and incorporating them into a staged coherent plan;
§  developing a plan which includes details of the action to be taken, the staff involved, the timescales set, the resources required and the success criteria to be used;
§  encouraging staff to demonstrate their commitment to the implementation of the plan;
§  evidencing action taken in line with time scales;
§  collecting, analysing and using the evidence to determine the effectiveness of the school development plan.
Through the questionnaire Pilot Schools were asked to make comments and allocate a grade, to indicate how “School Centre” assisted them with school development planning.
The ETI grading scale was used, where:
1 = significant strengths;
2 = strengths outweigh weaknesses;
3 = weaknesses outweigh strengths and
4 = significant weaknesses

Summary of Grading Evaluation of “School Centre”

School / Effectiveness of Principal / Effectiveness of teachers with specific responsibilities / Monitoring and Evaluation / Action to improve learning / Overall Grade
Holy Trinity Primary, Cookstown / 2 / 2 / 1 / 2 / 2
Belfast Girls Model / 2 / 2 / 2- 3 / 2 / 2
Ballymena Primary / 2 - 3 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 2
St John’s High, Dromore, Omagh / 1 – 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
Loughshore Educational Resource Centre, Belfast / 1 – 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
St Mary’s Grammar, Magherafelt / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
Termoncanice Primary, Limavady / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2
Dundonald Primary, Belfast / 1 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1

Overall Grade : 1 - 2

Six respondents recommended the purchase of “School Centre” for the NI Education Service. However 2 of the respondents raised concerns about total ongoing costs to schools.

Some comments from pilot schools

Pros

Dundonald Primary, Belfast

§  “I like the uniform approach which this software gives to school development planning”.
§  “Reduces multiple copies of reports/plans”.
§  “I have involved more people in this process and used School Centre for staff training purposes”.
§  “With the Revised Curriculum due to commence in September 2006 School Centre would help to keep everyone in school ‘on track’ with new initiatives and would help share results of staff training”;

Termoncanice Primary, Limavady

§  “It allows all staff to contribute appropriately to their job description and improve their feeling of participation”.
§  “All of these (sdp) processes involve so much more than the software itself yet it facilitates the process in a way that conventional means do not”.
§  “This software, I believe, helps address the problem of bureaucratic overload”.
§  “PRSD and schoolcentre I think could be very closely tied in together . . . I couldn’t speak highly enough. I’m not saying it’s perfect but it’s pretty close!”

St Mary’s Grammar, Magherafelt

§  (Gives) “explicit responsibility for all members of staff re their contribution to SDP”

Loughshore Educational Resource Centre

§  “The main advantage of school centre is that it is a ‘live’ document to which all staff can contribute”

St John’s High School, Dromore, Omagh

§  “Powerful as a monitoring tool – easily to update with progress”

Belfast Girls Model

§  “The biggest advantage I have found is the facility within School Centre for organising various bits of information in a single location. It allows me to readily access all relevant data easily and review and amend as required. Also, it is useful to outline staff roles, responsibilities team membership etc and relate this information directly to SDP”

Cons (related to the pilot)

§  Initially difficulties were experienced with the speed of access to School Centre through the managed service.
§  Although there was some preparation for the NI Pilot there is a need for more customisation to meet the NI education service eg links with SIMS
§  There is a need for further development of the software eg calendar, and levels of responsibility access
§  There is a need for NI support and guidance documents to be part of the package
§  Some difficulties experienced which highlighted the need to plan before introducing the software to staff.
A way forward - possible options

No

/ Option / Pros / Cons
1 / Individual school purchase / School Centre can be purchased when school staff are ready to take advantage of its ability to integrate ICT into school development planning / §  No customisation;
§  Limited opportunity for collaboration between schools;
§  No economies of scale;
§  Additional Granada costs for training and support.
2 / Purchase on behalf of a selected group of schools (50 schools) / §  Encourages use of ICT in school development planning;
§  Allows the development of collaborative networks;
§  Feedback may inform future appropriate customisation. / §  Selecting an appropriate group may be contentious;
§  Limited opportunity for economies of scale;
§  No customisation;
§  Additional Granada costs for training and support.
3 / Integration with other school improvement initiatives (limited group) / §  Possible cost synergy;
§  High profile;
§  Allows the development of collaborative networks;
§  Feedback may inform future appropriate customisation. / §  Selecting an appropriate group;
§  Possibility of confusion between initiative targets;
§  Limited opportunity for economies of scale;
§  No customisation;
§  Additional Granada costs for training and support.
A way forward - possible options

No