Heartsease High School



Heartsease High School

An Evaluation of the

KS3 mentoring programme 2003-4

Supported by the Do Different Networked Learning Community

Final report

Ann Stephens, Learning Mentor

Dominic Boddington, Assistant Headteacher

This report evaluates the use of a learning mentor programme in 2003-4 that targeted pupils in Y9 with the aim of boosting achievement in the KS3 English SAT.

Background

Heartsease High is a 12-18 comprehensive of about 400 pupils. A recent Ofsted Report (March 2003) judged that Heartsease is “a sound school” but noted that 35% of pupils were identified as having special educational needs; that “more than a third of the pupils joined or left (many more arrived than left) other than at the usual times of admission”; and that “standards on entry are very low overall in English, maths and science”.

In 2003 only 30% of Y9 pupils at Heartsease achieved a Level 5 in the KS3 English SAT. For many years literacy has been a key development area and various interventions have taken place in order to accelerate pupil progress. The purpose of this project, partly funded by the Do Different Networked Learning Community, is to evaluate those interventions and to inform the debate within the school about our whole school approach to literacy.

Purpose of the Mentor Programme

The purpose of the programme was to help Y9 pupils working at Level 4 to achieve their target minimum level of 5 in the English SAT.

Focus of intervention

Its focus was the development and improvement of writing skills to national curriculum level 5.

Mentor

We appointed a retired and very experienced teacher who had previously worked at Heartsease as Head of Humanities. Initially employed for a day a fortnight under the Key Stage 3 Strategy, her hours were increased to a day a week when funding was provided by the Do Different NLC. This extra time has also enabled us to do the evaluation.

The Mentor was briefed and supervised in her role by Vicky Jones, Head of English.

Process

a) The target group identified by analysis of KS2 levels, NFER CAT data, Fisher Family Trust predictions and discussion with English subject teachers. Thirteen pupils were selected, comprising approximately 14% of the cohort. In previous years pupils with a similar prior performance had failed to get a level 5 in the English SAT.

b) Individual learning programmes and targets were negotiated between the mentor and the pupils based on:

i. Pupil’s perceived need

ii. Subject teacher’s recommendations

iii. Mentor’s analysis of pupil’s written work across a range of subjects

c) The mentor programme consisted of weekly 20-45 minute sessions between November 2003 and May 2004. Pupils were withdrawn from their normal timetable individually and/or in pairs.

d) The data used for the evaluation of the programme included the following:

1) Attendance data

2) Pupil self-assessment at the start and the end of the programme

3) Pupil questionnaire at the end of the programme

4) Pupil interviews

5) Pupil profiles written by the mentor

6) Teacher interviews

7) Analysis of SAT results

Pupil Response to the Programme

1. Participation

Table A shows the attendance of pupils at the mentor sessions relative to their overall school performance.

Six of the thirteen pupils had better attendance at the mentor sessions than their overall school attendance. Two pupils – K and M – had significantly worse attendance at the sessions than their overall school attendance.

Table A (participation)

|Pupil |Attendance at mentor |School attendance November to|

| |sessions |May |

|A |94.7 |95.2 |

|B |89.4 |94.3 |

|C |100.0 |98.5 |

|D |100.0 |88.5 |

|E |94.7 |90.7 |

|F |94.7 |88.5 |

|G |100.0 |96.7 |

|H |94.7 |97.5 |

|I |94.7 |97.1 |

|J |78.9 |78.2 |

|K |63.1 |75.7 |

|L |100.0 |99.2 |

|M |78.9 |95.3 |

|Mean |91.1 |92.0 |

|median |94.7 |95.2 |

|mode |94.7 |88.5 |

|stdev |11.1 |7.5 |

| | | |

[pic]

2. Pupil self-assessment

Pupils were asked to place themselves on a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent) at the start (Nov 03) and finish (May 04) of the programme. One pupil (E) was not present to do the self assessment at the end of the programme.

Table B (self-assessment)

|Pupil |Nov 03 |May 04 |change |

|A |3.5 |7 |3.5 |

|B |5.0 |7.5 |2.5 |

|C |4.0 |6 |2 |

|D |2.5 |8 |5.5 |

|E |4.0 |n/a |- |

|F |7.0 |7 |0 |

|G |3.0 |7 |4 |

|H |2.0 |5 |3 |

|I |3.5 |6 |2.5 |

|J |4.0 |5 |1 |

|K |2.0 |8 |6 |

|L |3.0 |5 |2 |

|M |2.5 |7.5 |5 |

|mean |3.5 |6.6 |3.1 |

|median |3.5 |7.0 | |

|mode |4 |7 | |

[pic]

All but one pupil registered an increased self-assessment of their own ability. In many cases their self-assessment score more than doubled, indicating a likely increase in self-esteem and confidence.

3. Questionnaire Responses

Pupils were asked to indicate their “learning” response to nine writing skills addressed in the mentor programme. One pupil (pupil E) was not present to do the questionnaire.

Table C (Questionnaire responses)

[pic]

Key to Writing Skills:

1. Using correct punctuation

2. Understanding how to structure sentences

3. Understanding how to use and vary connectives

4. Understanding when to use new paragraphs and how to link them together

5. Understanding different verb tenses and when to use active and passive

6. Understanding the different ways of making writing more interesting

7. Writing a logical and balanced argument so as to inform and persuade

8. Recognising and understanding different forms of non-fictional text

9. Knowing when to write in an informal and formal way appropriate to the intended audience

On all but three of the skill areas – use of connectives (3), different forms of non-fiction text (8), and appropriate use of informal and formal writing (9), - at least 50% of the group recorded the highest level of learning satisfaction. Even the most negative respondent admitted to learning a little about punctuation (1), making writing more interesting (6) and writing balanced arguments (7).

4. Pupil Interview Responses

All pupils (apart from pupil E) were interviewed using semi-structured questions.

a) Responses to:

The things that made me feel o.k. about the mentor sessions……

• She tells us in clear language what to do and how to do it and you can ask her questions about anything to do with English at anytime.

• It was great having these extra lessons, it made me think about my work.

• We started with easy things that I could understand and moved onto more difficult things.

• They were fun.

• I wasn’t always taken out of the same lessons and I felt relaxed and not pressured into anything.

• You could ask questions and not feel embarrassed, not like in class.

• It definitely helped me a lot, I used the sheets to revise for my SATS.

• My writing improved a lot.

• I’ve learned how to make my writing more interesting.

• They helped me with my punctuation and sentence structure.

• Working with my friends

• I learned things I didn’t know-especially from the Nelson Mandela work.

• I liked her, she made me feel ok about talking to her.

• I liked getting out of some lessons.

• I increased my level of work.

• I might get a higher grade in my SATS.

• I felt I’ve done better because we used good examples and discussed things I didn’t know beforehand.

• I think she should continue to have the current year 9 to next year in GCSE.

b) Responses to

The things that put me off doing the mentor lessons…..

• I sometimes missed my favourite lessons.

• Working with a partner because I didn’t say as much as I wanted to.

• Learning things I already knew.

• Having to work a bit more and harder.

• Just coming to the sessions.

• Carrying my folder around.

• The Nelson Mandela stuff was a bit boring because some of the language was difficult to understand.

• Coming exactly after break, lunch.

• When I forgot what I had done in the session before.

• I got into my work in lessons and sometimes didn’t want to go.

• Saying at the end about what I had learned in the sessions.

c) Responses to;

I think the mentor sessions would have been better if……

• We had been in the same room instead of one day room 2, next day English office.

• We could have had longer sessions.

• Some of the sheets could have been more interesting.

• We could have started this in year 8.

• I had known about my appointments in good time instead of the same day.

5. Pupil Profiles

The following profiles were written by the mentor at the end of the programme to provide qualitative exemplar data about how students responded during the mentoring. Before meeting the pupils the mentor had access to their school files.

Pupil C

Male, dyslexic, well-adjusted, polite, friendly. Excellent school and mentoring attendance (98.5% and 100% respectively). He actively participated in all sessions and felt he had learned a lot from them. He was predicted to get a Level 4 and achieved a level 5 with a level 6 for writing.

Pupil D

Male, suffering from asthma and neurofibromatosis. He has poor handwriting skills due to co-ordination difficulties. He is a “loner” who has been a victim of bullying throughout his schooling; he has difficulty sustaining peer friendships. He was predicted a level 4 but achieved level 5. His school attendance during the period of the project was only 88.5% but he had 100% attendance at the mentor sessions. He responded very well and requested that the intervention should continue at KS4.

Pupil F

Female who dislikes school and most of her subjects which she finds “boring”. She attended 94.7% of the sessions compared with an overall school attendance of 88.5%. Her participation was reluctant but she admitted to having used the guidance sheets to revise for her SATs. She was predicted a level 4 but achieved level 5.

Pupil J

Female with a single parent mother. She had poor school and session attendance – 78.2% and 78.9% respectively. She was disaffected with school and had low self-esteem. She was frequently removed from lessons for disruptive behaviour. However, she participated well in the mentor sessions and was positive about the progress she had made. Predicted a level 4, she achieved a level 5.

Pupil K

Female, very unhappy in school with a poor attendance record of only 75.7%. On average she was removed from 10% of lessons each week as a result of poor behaviour. She attended 63.1% of the mentor sessions and her participation was excellent; she was always smiling pleasant and polite and thanked me at the end. Although predicted a level 4 she got a level 5

6. Teacher Interviews

The Headteacher, Head of English and an English teacher gave their views on the programme.

Comments included the following:

• It gave pupils the opportunity to learn in a one-to-one environment.

• It provided pupils with the opportunity to revisit skills and secure their knowledge.

• Focusing on assessment objectives in class and during mentor meetings allows pupils to feel confident about the exam.

• Pupils’ attitude towards mentoring sessions was very positive. They looked forward to their meetings and were able to report back on their learning. They clearly showed that they were taking ownership and responsibility for their progress.

• They enjoyed the opportunity to reflect upon and be given detailed feedback on the work they had already produced in class. Knowing “what they get right” and “what they get wrong” was an empowering experience.

• The attitude changes I have seen in some pupils represent a significant impact on the school population.

• This type of work within the school is important for providing information and evidence of intervention work, a key theme of Key Stage 3 development.

7. SAT Results

In November 2003 all of the pupils were working at Level 4. In previous years pupils with similar profiles failed to achieve Level 5. In 2004 all of the pupils in the target group, with the exception of one who was absent for the reading paper, attained a Level 5 and one of them a Level 6.

Table D shows the percentage of Y9 pupils achieving a Level 5 or better in the KS3 English SATs in each year since 1998.

Table D (SAT results 2004)

The improvement in 2002 was not sustained in 2003 leaving the long term average at 30% In 2004 there was a unprecedented increase to 56% and the mentoring project was likely to have been a contributing factor to this. There are no doubt other causes such as improvements in teaching, a greater pedagogical emphasis on preparation for the tests, in particular the use of KS3 Progress Units and Booster lessons, and the impact of SuccessMaker, - but, while these might be expected to have had a gradual impact on results over the last three years and might indeed have taken results up to the 2002 level of 42%, the further 14% rise (12 pupils) taking results up to 56% is most obviously explained as the result of the mentoring project.

Table E shows the proportion of marks coming from the separate reading and writing papers for each of the pupils on the mentor programme. The mentoring concentrated on writing skills and it is significant that eight of the thirteen pupils achieved higher marks in writing than in reading; only three achieved lower marks; one got equal marks in both papers and one was absent for the reading test. In previous years the majority of pupils have done better on the reading paper than on the writing paper.

Table E (2004 SAT results breakdown) [pic]

Conclusion

Our overall judgement is that mentoring is a powerful tool to improve pupil performance. Disadvantaged young people facing difficulties in and out of school, and with a history of under-achievement, not surprisingly, often lack self-esteem, confidence and motivation. In the classroom peer pressure is a significant barrier to them taking control of their own learning and asking the sorts of questions that might help them to move forward. One-to-one tutoring by a skilled teacher in a non-threatening environment can identify the particular learning difficulties holding a pupil back and give him or her skills and the confidence to move forward.

Recommendations

1. The opportunity for pupils to experience extended writing in other subjects is too haphazard. The mentoring project revealed that from week to week pupils might not be doing any extended writing at all. There needs to be a coherent plan for pupils to experience, practise and consolidate the different forms and styles of writing across the curriculum.

2. Detailed marking guidelines are needed covering syntax, grammar, punctuation and spelling. The application of the marking policy requires regular monitoring.

3. Closer liaison with middle schools would familiarise teachers with the literacy work already being done and minimise backsliding on transition.

4. Mentoring should start as early as possible in Year 8. At present resources only allow intervention to take place in Year 9.

5. Ideally mentoring should continue through into KS4.

6. We believe the project has established that academic mentoring has to be done by skilled teachers but the benefits of mentoring could be extended by learning support assistants working with the mentor and helping the pupil to apply skills in the classroom. We might consider some or all of our LSAs spending time with the mentor at work as part of their training programmes.

October 2004

-----------------------

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download