literacy in four effective schools

20

Click here to load reader

Upload: bet

Post on 24-Mar-2017

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 03:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

School Leadership &Management: Formerly SchoolOrganisationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

Literacy in Four EffectiveSchoolsBet MccallumPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Bet Mccallum (1999) Literacy in Four Effective Schools,School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 19:1, 7-24, DOI:10.1080/13632439969311

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632439969311

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form

Page 2: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use canbe found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

School Leadership & Management, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 7 ± 24, 1999

Literacy in Four Effective SchoolsBET MCCALLUMUniversity of London, Institute of Education, Assessment Guidance and Effective

Learning Group, Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AL, UK

ABSTRACT Set against a background of current government policy initiatives to raise the

achievement of primary school pupils in literacy, this article describes a small-scale study of four

primary schools where high numbers of 11-year olds achieve level 4 or better in English by the

end of Key Stage 2 (KS2). The management procedures and teaching practices used in the

schools are argued to be effectiveness factors in the pupils’ achievement. Thirteen characteristics

are identi® ed as common to all four or to three out of four of these effective schools. Creativity

as a personality characteristic of the four headteachers is tentatively proposed as a fourteenth

characteristic and the link between school effectiveness and creativity of school leaders is

suggested as a topic for further research.

Introduction

Only 60% of 11-year olds in England and Wales achieve standards of literacy

expected for their ageÐ level 4 or better (OfSTED 1998) and only one in ® ve

schools has more than 80% of pupils at level 4 or above. Levels achieved at KS1 and

KS2 in literacy and numeracy are now recognised as determinants of later academic

outcomes (Sammons et al. 1997), primary education is seen as having more

far-reaching effects than secondary education (Reynolds & Farrell, 1996a), and poor

levels of academic achievement can be linked to poor levels of economic perform-

ance (Reynolds & Farrell 1996). Given all this, the government is aiming for a

dramatic improvement in standards at primary level and has set a national target of

80% of 11-year olds achieving level 4 by 2002.

The initiative through which this improvement is to be realised, The National

Literacy Strategy, is currently being implemented. LEAs and schools have begun to

set their own literacy targets and teachers have started a programme of training to

build their curricular knowledge and teaching skills. Teachers are required to deliver

a particular approach to the teaching of reading and writing which uses term-by-

term objectives. [1]

The National Literacy Strategy arose from the determinations of the Literacy

Task Force, established in 1996 by the then Shadow Secretary of State for Edu-

cation, David Blunkett. During the spring of 1997, I undertook a small piece of

research which was to contribute to the Task Force’ s recommendations to the

incoming Government and to subsequent policy. The main research question was

1363-2434 /99/010007-18 $7.00 Ó 1999 Carfax Publishing Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

8 B. McCallum

not surprising: why is it that in some schools a large percentage of 11-year olds do

achieve level 4 or better?

Given that the General Election was looming (May 1997) and the recommen-

dations were somewhat urgent, the study had to be small scale. The work was

carried out in four schools where the KS2 English results in 1995 showed that

between 71% and 100% of 11-year olds were gaining level 4 or above. The purpose

of the research was to explore what these schools had in common and to shed light

on why their children were achieving well.

This article gives a brief description of the research design and details 13

characteristics that emerged as common to the four schools. Strategies at both

school and classroom level are identi® ed and argued to be factors which contributed

to the effectiveness of literacy teaching in the schools.

The Sample of Schools

The schools were chosen mainly because of the standards reached at KS2 but two

of the schools had recently been inspected on behalf of the Of® ce for Standards in

Education (OfSTED) and were selected because their overall reports were sound or

good and the teaching of literacy was commended. The schools were not involved

with the National Literacy Project. The four schools represented different socio-

economic and geographic conditions and were of different sizes and types with

different forms of pupil organisation.

School 1: A Church of England (CE) primary school in North London with a

catchment area of inner-city estates and some owner-occupied housing. There were

99 pupils on roll: 94% African Caribbean, 35 on the Special Educational Needs

(SEN) register, two statemented children, 54% Free School Meals (FSM); 100% of

Year 6 children gained level 4 or above in 1995. The head had been in post for only

one year. Staf® ng had been stable, teachers having served approximately 6 years in

the school. All classes were vertically grouped and taught mostly as class groups.

The head was timetabled to teach English to Year 6.

School 2: A small primary school in rural East Sussex with mostly owner-

occupied housing and some local authority housing. There were 80 pupils on roll:

almost 100% white, one child with a statement, 9% FSM; 100% of Year 6 children

gained level 4 or above in 1995. The OfSTED report described the school as `a very

good school’ overall and commended the standards in English. The head had been

in post for 7 years, the staff stable with between 3± 6 years service in the school. All

classes were vertically grouped, with one class containing Year 2, Year 3 and Year

4 children. All classes were taught mostly as class groups. The head was timetabled

to teach groups for English and other subjects every day.

School 3: A junior school in a rural village with some areas of deprivation near

a large city in Northumberland with 171 on roll: almost 100% white, 65 on the SEN

register, five statemented children, 35% FSM; 77% of Year 6 children gained level

4 or above in 1995. The OfSTED report described the school as sound overall and

commended the teaching of literacy. The head had been in post for 5 years, the staff

stable since then. The children were organised according to their age and this led to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

Literacy in Four Effective Schools 9

some vertically grouped classes and some year groups. Setting was in place across

the school for 3 days per week in English and mathematics. The head was not

timetabled to teach.

School 4: A middle sized inner-city primary school in a densely populated part

of West London. There were 270 on roll: 79% children with English as an additional

language (Arabic, Bengali, Somali, Turkish, Portuguese and Urdu all spoken) 22 on

the SEN register, two statemented children, 57% FSM; 71% of Year 6 children

gained level 4 or above in 1995. The head had been in post for 6 years and, although

there had been a high turnover of staff, there was a core of three in¯ uential teachers

who had been there for over 6 years. The children were organised in year groups

with the exception of two classes: one Year 2/Year 3 class grouped according to

ability (containing the more able Year 2s) and one Year 5/Year 6 class grouped on

the basis of `social dynamics’ . The head spent part of every Monday observing in

classrooms.

Data Collection

The information was gathered through classroom observation, face-to-face inter-

views, a visit to the school library and the analysis of school documents. Table I

speci® es the data collected in each school.

Following data collection, a case study was written for each school and the four

case studies were compared and contrasted. Practices and procedures common to all

four schools (or 3 out of 4) were drawn together and from these, the following 13

characteristics emerged.

Thirteen Characteristics Common to Schools in the Study

1. Literacy is Given High Status

`The message is clear to all connected with the school that literacy is very import-

antÐ the main thing for us.’ The headteacher quoted here was not alone in her

assertion. The other three heads in their own way explained the high status placed

upon literacy in their schools. All four heads spent heavily on books for children and

for teachers, on other resources for language and on creating well-organised,

well-stocked, attractive libraries. English or an aspect of English was continually

emphasised in school development planning and backed with cash, SEN and other

support (such as linking up with any availab le LEA Literacy initiatives). Teachers in

all the schools agreed that they placed the greatest emphasis on literacy because they

saw reading and writing as the `most crucial’ skills . `Getting children reading’ was

clearly the key objective of early years teachers in particular. In the schools where

many children spoke English as an additional language, all class teaching was in

English (although mother tongue speakers were welcomed and often taught groups).

In all schools, English was timetabled into particular slots every day, usually in the

morning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

10 B. McCallum

TA

BL

EI.

Data

co

llec

ted

inea

ch

sch

oo

l

Cla

ssro

om

Sch

oo

lo

bse

rvati

on

sin

:In

terv

iew

sw

ith

:B

rief

talk

wit

h:

Do

cum

ent

analy

sis

of:

1R

ece

pti

on

/Y1

clas

sR

ece

pti

on

teach

er4

chil

dre

nM

ark

ing

Po

licy

Y3

/Y4

class

Y3

/Y4

teach

er

Rea

din

gR

eco

very

Ass

ess

men

tP

oli

cy

Y6

class

En

gli

shco

-ord

inato

rte

ach

erE

ngli

shP

oli

cy

Head

teach

erP

are

nt

help

er

2R

ece

pti

on

Y1

incl

ass

Rece

pti

on

teach

er/E

ngli

shco

-ord

inato

r6

chil

dre

nO

fST

ED

Rep

ort

(95

)

and

du

rin

gli

bra

ryY

2/Y

3/Y

4te

ach

er

Pare

nt

help

erE

ngli

shS

kil

lsP

oli

cy

less

on

Y5

/Y6

teach

er/

lib

rary

co-o

rdin

ato

rS

EN

CO

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Po

licy

Y2

/Y3

/Y4

class

Head

teach

erA

ssess

men

tP

oli

cy

Y6

gro

up

An

aly

sis

of

Read

ing

sco

res

Pare

nts

’R

ead

ing

Lea¯

et

Lib

rary

Po

licy

Ph

on

ics

sch

em

eo

fw

ork

Gra

mm

arsc

hem

eo

fw

ork

En

gli

shP

oli

cy

3Y

3`m

ain

stre

am

’se

tY

3te

ach

er/E

ngli

shco

-ord

inato

r4

chil

dre

nO

fST

ED

Rep

ort

(96

)

Y6

`to

p’

set

Y6

teach

erD

epu

ty/S

EN

CO

En

gli

shP

oli

cy

Head

teach

erS

EN

sup

po

rtte

ach

erP

ho

nic

sÐO

rder

of

teach

ing

Pare

nts

’R

ead

ing

Lea¯

et

4R

ece

pti

on

cla

ssR

ece

pti

on

teach

er4

chil

dre

nE

ngli

shP

oli

cy

Y3

(`m

ore

able

’gro

up

)S

ecti

on

X1

/Read

ing

Reco

ver

yte

ach

erY

3te

ach

er

Ass

ess

men

tP

oli

cy

Y6

class

Head

teach

erY

6te

ach

er

Pare

nts

’R

ead

ing

Lea¯

et

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

Literacy in Four Effective Schools 11

From the outset it was clear from the observations that there was a strong

emphasis on reading in the schools’ general environment and through display. In the

majority of classrooms, teachers worked hard to create `language environments’ in

which children could have the best chance to learn to read. Reading corners were set

up in both early years and later years classes, and there was an exciting collection of

alphabet toys, mobiles and charts, reading games, collections of objects to help

develop sounds awareness, toy theatres and puppets for role play and story telling.

On display boards were captions, `sounds’ , book reviews, `book of the week’

features. On `writing tables’ were dictionaries and thesauruses. Sheets of letters

(correctly formed) and lists of common words were glued to the table-tops. Reading

resources (core scheme books, group-reading books, reading games, Big books)

were centrally stored, well maintained, labelled and accessible. Systems existed to

show if something had been borrowed. All schools had well-stocked libraries with

® ction, non-® ction, play scripts and story tapes.

Reading was the main component of homework, with all four schools operating

a home-school scheme where children took home, for example, one ® ction and one

non-® ction book once or twice per week. The amount of parental interest varied

from school to school but was over two thirds in three of the schools. Where parents’

® rst language was not English, older brothers and sisters often took part in the

scheme. Reception teachers (and two of the parent helpers interviewed) believed

that the involvement of parents (particularly those who used the school approach)

had been a factor in the improvement of their children’ s reading and in one school,

the reception teacher speci® cally set out to pick up `the few lax parents’ . In general,

teachers sensed that because the majority of children were reading reasonably well

by the end of Year 2, parents were inclined to `drop off’ when children moved into

Year 3. The teachers worked particularly hard to persuade these parents to continue

helping their children at home.

Headteachers actively encouraged volunteers and helpers to listen to children

reading as they had found that `children feel important and want to read well for

those adults’ . Sometimes this was systematically organised. For example, in one

school, volunteers, parents and paid primary helpers were carefully timetabled and

organised so that children were heard reading twice a week. Staff had found this

regular input to be a factor in children’ s success because `they are motivated, they

know it’ s going to happen and this keeps momentum going’ . Record books were

carefully prepared for these helpers and they knew exactly how to use them. Each

week the teacher asked them to focus on one aspect of a child’ s reading (for

example, accuracy) and explained the kind of evidence to look for (or the kind of

questions to ask) so that the comments written in the record were appropriate and

useful for assessment purposes.

2. Headteachers Use Staff Deployment and Pupil Organisation to Give the Best Possible

Chance for Learning

Staf® ng and Staff Development. All four heads had carefully considered how best

to staff the school and deploy the teachers. In order to help the children who

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

12 B. McCallum

found reading dif® cult, one head had released her deputy to carry out Reading

Recovery sessions every morning. Another had decided not to have a deputy and this

had released a large budget for supply cover so that teachers could have non-contact

time for co-ordinating their subjects. Two heads thought it important to teach

groups themselves and were strictly timetabled for Year 6. They were seen by

teachers to have similar pressures to themselves, to empathise and to lead by

example. Another head, herself the English co-ordinator, did not teach but was

timetabled every Monday to observe in classrooms and give same-day feedback to

the teachers observed. The fourth head did not teach or take groups. However,

teachers in the school reported that they felt supported in another way: `the head

takes away from the teachers as much non-teaching administration as possible.’ The

heads believed in putting teachers `where they do their best job’ and had made

strategic decisions about which teachers should teach which year group. Examples

were: the KS1 co-ordinator teaching in the nursery; the KS2 co-ordinator super-

vising the induction of NQTs; experienced teachers of early years teaching in

Reception; non-teaching deputies as Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators

(SENCOs).

In decisions about spending, the heads explained they had prioritised staf® ng,

often using up other discretionary budgets:

If it came to a decision between computers or teachers, there would be no

contest.

I make sure there is good supply of adultsÐ as much money as possible is

put into teachers, primary helpers and specialist support.

Pupil Organisation. With a view to giving the best possible chance for learning, and

taking account of constraints such as number in each year group, heads had put a

great deal of thought into different ways of organising classes and groups. It is in

relation to this that two heads took groups themselves, in order to reduce the size

and ability range within groups. In one primary school, they had decided to create

a class of Year 5/Year 6 children on the basis of `compatibility’ to avoid personality

clashes and disruption.

In the junior school, the head had introduced `setting’ 5 years before.

For English, children in Years 5 and 6 were in three sets for three mornings per

week. (`Top, middle and SEN’ ). For English, children in Years 3 and 4 were split

up for three mornings per week in the following way: one teacher taught the Year

3s and the other taught the Year 4s while the children with SEN from both years

were taught by the SEN teacher and two helpers. There was no ¯ exibility within this

timetable. These lessons were deemed `sacrosanct’ . The head was committed to

setting because he believed it ensured match of work to ability level, allowed

teachers to do a better job because the range of ability was narrower and helped

teachers to really notice progression. In addition, he felt strongly that children with

SEN had `time for real concentration with appropriate teaching.’ The SEN teacher

in the school agreed that setting was a good idea as `children with SEN can feel lost

in class groups.’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

Literacy in Four Effective Schools 13

3. There is a Subject-based Approach to the National Curriculum

In all four schools, the National Curriculum was taught as discrete subjects from

Year 3 onwards. Heads and teachers argued that this had helped them plan a clear

pathway of progression through each subject. In all four schools, schemes of work

had been developed in English and other subjects.

4. Elements of the English Curriculum are Taught Separately

Heads and teachers in the four schools stressed that it is crucial to teach the different

elements of English separately and so reading, spelling, punctuation and gram mar,

vocabulary, and handwriting activities were each identi® ed in the teachers’ time-

tables and planning. Generally, English and mathematics were given `morning slots’

as teachers had found `you can get so much more done’ . Across the four schools at

KS1, great emphasis was placed on learning to read and on speaking and listening

(mainly listening) whereas more emphasis on reading for meaning occurred at KS2.

5. Schools have a Culture of `Making Things Better’

In one school, the head described `a climate of improvement’ and an ethos of

`making things better’ and this emerged as a characteristic of all the schools. As part

of this climate of improvement, the heads analysed and tracked reading test results

and pupils’ errors in reading comprehension and writing test papers and acted on

any ® ndings (in ways described in 2 and 4 above). In one staffroom a large notice

spelled out one of the school targets: `SEN ObjectiveÐ to achieve Level 2

in English ’ . As part of the ethos of `making things better’ , teachers had high

expectations and the different abilities represented in classrooms were targeted for

improvement.

Teachers’ Expectations. Scrutiny of teachers’ marking in children’ s books, evidence

in their task planning, and observation of the teachers in action show clearly that

they have high expectations of their children. In the words of one teacher:

Our aim is to go beyond the levels expected for Y1 and Y2.

The teachers also set clear targets for improvement. In one school, two teachers

were overhead discussing and analysing the running records completed by the

Reading Recovery teacher and deciding on the next teaching points for those

children.

In another school, the deputy who had recently been appointed, explained that

she had never met such analytical teachers:

They look at the different learning approaches of different children; they

identify the minutiae such as the relationship between children’ s speaking

and listening dif® culties and their spelling; they address dyspraxia to

improve hand control.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

14 B. McCallum

Early Identi® cation and Targeted Support for Children with Special Educational

Needs. All those interviewed agreed that it is crucial to identify children with

dif® culties as early as possible. The general pattern was to allow children to settle in

reception for two terms and then to decide upon any particular support. The four

study schools had developed different ways of ensuring that SEN pupils were

appropriate ly supported.

In one school, the deputy was released every morning to work intensively

with four children one-to-one on a Reading Recovery programme. The children

(2 Year 1 and 2 Year 2) were selected because they had been observed and either

`didn’ t have any strategies for reading’ or `were bright verbally but couldn’ t

write ’ . The teacher used running records every other day and analysed the

children’ s `attack’ on reading. Both she and the Year 2 teacher could see that the

children were really bene® ting from the intensiveness and one-to-one nature of the

programmeÐ gaining in self-con® dence and developing a few strategies to decode

words. The deputy worked hard on enlisting the full support and help of the

children’ s parents.

At another school, the SENCO used the PAT scheme (Phonological Awareness

Training), a systematic phonic and word building program me, which works on the

principle of breaking words up into smaller bits. She argued that it gives children

more con® dence to tackle print. She and the teachers worked closely together: the

children carried out some of the PAT worksheets in class time and the class teachers

monitored whether the children could transfer what they had learned to everyday

classwork. The exchange of information between SENCO and classteachers ensured

that children’ s progress was constantly being assessed. In this school, the head also

bought in extra time from the SENCO to help more children, especially in KS2.

In a third school, the non-teaching deputy was also the SENCO and she used

non-contact time to ensure that SEN children were carefully monitored. She worked

closely with the SEN support teacher and their teaching principles were reported as:

`simple steps, repetition, carefully chosen IT programmes, small targets’ .

In the fourth school, the head bought in extra support for very able children.

6. Schools have a Collaborative Culture

From observation and discussions with English co-ordinators, it became obvious

that teachers in these schools collaborated with each other on a daily basisÐ sharing

lesson plans and discussing the nitty gritty of teachingÐ what works, what does not

(described by one reception teacher as `the grapevine culture of ideas and re-

sources’ ). `Work showing’ around the school was suggested as another way in which

ideas spread. In one school, teachers in the same phase were strategically partnered

and the English co-ordinator reported that the partnerships were beginning to pay

off through the sharing of good ideas. In another school where teachers habitually

observed each other, the head reported a high level of professional discussion. In a

third school, where the reception teacher liaised closely with the nursery teacher,

teachers in later age groups recognised and commended a good foundation for

children in those early years.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

Literacy in Four Effective Schools 15

Networks of this kind offered support systems for new teachers, as one

explained:

My source of support is my colleague, the Year 1/Year 2 teacher who is also

the KS1 co-ordinatorÐ she leads in the planning. Then we work closely

together, share ideas, set standards and have the same expectations.

Perhaps the most signi® cant input to the collaborative culture in these schools

was made by specialist support staff. Over and over again teachers stressed the

invaluable help they receive from SENCOs, Section 11 teachers and Reading

Recovery teachers. To give some of the many examples:

I really valued the support and input given by the Section 11 teacher

(particularly advice about extending able children).

I wanted to stress the support from the Section 11 teacher who gives many

ideas for tasks.

I tap the expertise of the SEN teacher.

I’ ve had a lot of guidance from the Section 11/RR teacher who is up to date

with research and development.

The overall impression gained in these schools was one of ª close-knitº teams.

7. A Core of Experienced Primary Teachers

In all four schools there had been reasonable stability of a core of two or three

members of staff who were keenly interested in literacy. These teachers generally

had between 14± 20 years primary experience and had been in the schools for no less

than 6 years, and often longer.

8. Teachers are United, Committed and Enthusiastic About Literacy

In answer to the question, `why do your children do so well in English?’ both heads

and teachers mentioned three characteristics of the teachers themselves: that they

were experienced, that they were committed and that they had expertise.

Teachers believed that years of experience (whereby one develops a repertoire

or a kind of teaching memory of strategies and tasks that work) cannot be ignored.

Heads and teachers recognised, also, that often `teachers are generally more

con® dent about teaching English, than some other subjects’ . In two schools, they

explained that many of the teachers `had been through a number of fads’ but had

clung to the key philosophy that `creative ideas are important but you have to teach

the mechanics of reading and writing’ .

The same unity of staff under one approach was observed in the other two

schools and reported by English co-ordinators:

The staff all know the stages of reading and so can teach for progression.

The staff have familiarised themselves with all the school language

resources and know how to use them.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

16 B. McCallum

The commitment of these teachers, evident from the observation of lessons and

from the interviews, cannot be over-emphasised. Teachers’ love and knowledge of

the subject, teachers’ respect for children’ s development, teachers’ acting as good

role modelsÐ promoting literacy in what they themselves did, teachers’ enthusiasm

for and attitudes to booksÐ everything displayed a certain `passion’ .

9. Teaching is Targeted, Tightly Planned, Brisk, Motivating and Interactive

Only outstanding or very good lessons were observed in all four schools, in both

early years and later years classes.

There was evidence of tightly planned teaching where teachers:

· prepared suf® cient and diverse resources (games, word-dice, video, word

searches, teacher-designed worksheets, storyboards, dictionaries) and made

them accessible so that movement was cut to a minimum;

· insisted on children’ s listening and used a range of strategies to manage this

well such as humour and `dramatic ’ presentation and delivery;

· gave brief, clear instructions;

· organised lessons so that children had a number of different activities to carry

out, either in pairs or individually on work at text, sentence and word level;

· organised lessons so that children had plenty to do;

· moved at a brisk pace, often giving time lim its (mostly in Years 3± 6);

· prepared tasks that were attainable in the time allowed;

· interacted constantly either with individuals or by drawing the attention of

the whole class to the `good practice’ of particular children or to common

errors;

· made frequent use of both open-ended and closed questioning;

· encouraged children to give full explanations;

· took opportunities to link the teaching of reading to writing and to literary

appreciation;

· `pushed’ children into thinking by making tasks challenging (from Year 1

onwards);

· managed any misbehaviour skilfully; and

· showed passion for the work.

Some other general characteristics emerged from the interviews and the

documents as follows:

· From the outset, reading skills were taught using phonics and word

recognition of 100 then 200 most common words.

· Two main reading schemes were used plus a variety of supplementary

material.

· A great variety of ways of organising pupils for reading in all year groups (for

example, paired, in a group to read one book and dramatise it, in a group to

read large book with the teacher, in differentiated groups).

· Advice was sought and ideas were adopted from SENCOs, Section 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

Literacy in Four Effective Schools 17

teachers, Reading Recovery teachers (such as help with observing

and analysing reading strategies used by individual children; step-by-step

suggestions for individual children).

· The teaching of reading was organised so that weaker readers or younger

readers were heard every day while more competent or accomplished readers

were not `heard’ as such but were engaged in discussion about their

appreciation of books.

When asked to give some pointers to ensure children’ s success with reading and

writing, early years teachers offered the following:

Teach the art of listening (tell children `don’ t call out, take turns’ ).

Introduce and reinforce classroom norms of quiet working habits.

Reading:

Make reading `high status’ .

Draw attention to `print’ in as many ways as possible.

Talk a lot about picture books.

Get children to speculate on what pictures are about.

Draw children out with questioning.

Let children join in (give them `the joy of repeating a book over and over’ ).

Start phonics from the word go.

Send home words to learn (a sheet of key words that are used in children’ s

everyday lives and which children can use in other contexts).

Know the progressive steps to take to move a child on.

Have absolute objectives (know what children are expected to have

achieved by the end of a year).

Choose books that focus on things that children are likely to know of or

have experiencedÐ naughtiness, parties and so on.

Use Cloze procedures to teach reading for meaning.

Be analytical, develop anything you ® nd that works.

Writing:

Encourage children to `have a go’ (the developmental writing approach).

Give clear instructions.

Emphasise sentences, capitals and full stops early.

Teach spelling.

Present many opportunities for writing.

Sound out words as you write them on the board.

Later Years teachers were asked which factors may have in¯ uenced children’ s

success on National tests. They suggested the following:

Year Three:

A good start in KS1.

Children’ s competitive nature.

Direct teaching of spelling, handwriting, grammar, vocabulary.

Plenty of teacher input.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 14: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

18 B. McCallum

Keeping children challenged and on task.

Doing lots of practice (comprehension, spelling, handwriting, gram mar,

vocabulary).

Being read to.

Using computers for word processing and competing against the spell

check.

Training in classroom routines (collecting resources quickly and so on).

Access to real authors and real stories in a structured way.

Every possible opportunity for writing across the curriculum.

Make it so a child can see where a task endsÐ do not give an insurmount-

able task.

Use a video and pause to encourage prediction.

Excellent use of teachers’ questioning and probing.

Year Six:

A lot of comprehension practice (the main objective is to get them to give

full enough answers).

Peer assessmentÐ children read each others’ work then talk seriously and

critically as a class and in pairs.

Teaching each of the elements of English separately.

Homework in English and mathematics.

Timetabled daily silent reading.

Children are taught how to summarise.

Children are encouraged to `read between the lines in every text.’

Variety in the tasks set.

A great deal of positive reinforcement.

10. Subject Leadership and Guidance

Guidelines and Policies. Heads and co-ordinators had developed for teachers a clear

set of guidelines in the teaching of English. English Policy documents and belief

statements from all four schools contained direct instruction to teachers such as `DO

shared writing; ENCOURAGE child to attempt words; TEACH order of letters;

SHOW letter formation’ . The policies detailed a programme of progression through

every strand of English and for each year group (from nursery± Year 6). For example,

in one school’ s Library Policy there was a plan for the work of each class throughout

the school. The library co-ordinator taught every class and every lesson had a

learning objective about library use.

To aid teachers’ planning, central resources for teaching reading were often

stored and labelled in order of progression.

Coordinators’ Status and Input. It was evident from the interviews with other

teachers that literacy or English co-ordinators had `status’ in the schools. For

example, as one Year 6 teacher explained:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 15: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

Literacy in Four Effective Schools 19

The co-ordinator is aware of current thinking and new developments and

can communicate clearly to the rest of the staff in both formal INSET and

informal ways. She has done sterling work in building up resources.

Co-ordinators themselves reported giving much input and felt able to lead; they

often had a pastoral role with NQTs or teachers new to the school and systematically

monitored the teaching of literacy.

11. Progression is Monitored

In these schools children’ s progression was monitored in a number of ways:

· Teachers brought a selection of children’ s books to staff meetings and these

were discussed (or co-ordinators did this in non-contact time).

· In some cases, teachers’ marking was reviewed to see whether the ways of

marking helped or hindered children’ s progress.

· Heads paid particular attention to the results and progression of children in

mixed-age classes and when one year group was split between two teachers.

· In one school, on one day each term, teachers used `conferencing’ Ð they

talked to every child in their class (Years 2± 6) about their reading, attitudes

and problems. The notes from these conferences informed further teaching.

· Every child on the SEN registers had targets and Individual Education Plans

(IEPs) were kept up-to-date.

12. Baseline Testing was in Place

The 3 primary schools carry out baseline testing in the reception class. The

outcomes determine the planning for groups within the class.

13. Reading and Writing was Regularly Assessed and Passed Up Records Used

Teacher Assessment and Testing. At classroom level, teachers told children the aims

of lessons and what they would be looking for and children were encouraged to

self-assess. Teacher Assessment included running records for reading (weekly) and

teacher-designed tests and tasks at the end of taught units. Marking, written

feedback and verbal feedback was consistent to a whole-school policy and teachers’

comments speci® ed how a child could improve. One Year 6 teacher explained that

with the lower ability children, she corrected fewer mistakes Ð with the abler children

she did `saturation marking’ .

At school level, there were formal comprehension tests and standardised read-

ing tests once or twice a year in most instances. In one school, the co-ordinator

reported that at Year 4, there was a 4-week reading program me which `picked up

any late or persistant problems and involved parents’ . Children read once per day at

home and once per day at school `to motivate and improve’ . All four schools

encouraged weekly spelling tests and children were grouped by ability for spelling.

In some cases a piece of writing (imaginative and factual) was levelled each term.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 16: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

20 B. McCallum

Passed Up Records Are Used. In all the schools teachers used records passed up from

the previous teacher to decide on work for individuals or groups but in some

instances they also took note of helpers’ comments about the reading strategies

children used and about their attitudes to reading. In one primary school, passed up

records were based on the child’ s performance on the school reading scheme

because this gave all teachers a notion of how to proceed as all were familiar with the

scheme.

In the junior school, there were good working relationships with the infant

school and together they had developed a joint record keeping system. The Year 2

teachers, using the same standardised test as the juniors, sent up a reading age per

child and an average per group. The Year 3 teacher reported that she accepted and

trusted the Year 2 teacher’ s assessments of children.

Summary: Thirteen Characteristics Found in all Four (or 3 out of 4

Schools) with High Levels of Pupils Gaining Level 4 at KS2

1. Literacy is Given High Status

· Emphasis on literacy in the stated aims of the school, in School Development

Planning, in spending on resources and personnel.

· Speci® c timetabled slots for reading and writing skills in the morning.

· Classrooms and other areas of the school set up as `language environments’ .

· Well developed libraries.

· Organised home-reading schemes with lea¯ ets to parents.

2. Headteachers Use Staff Deployment and Pupil Organisation to Give the Best Possible

Chance for Learning

· Deployment of staff to make best use of teachers’ skills , either with a

particular class or to support other teachers; careful consideration of who

teaches nursery and reception; who is SENCO. Trained/well-briefed primary

helpers assigned to one particular class.

· Management of pupil organisation to offer the best chance for learning to all

pupils; ¯ exible grouping and setting.

· Management of budget by headteacher to ensure as a priority, adequately

staffed groups and smallish classes or groups.

· Visible presence of heads in classrooms, either teaching or observing.

3. A Subject-based Approach to the National Curriculum

4. Elements of the English Curriculum Taught Separately

· Reading activities, spelling, punctuation and grammar, vocabulary and

handwriting are separately identi® ed in the teachers’ timetables and planning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 17: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

Literacy in Four Effective Schools 21

5. A Culture of `Making Things Better’

· Heads and teachers `care about school results’ .

· Teachers analyse children’ s learning strategies.

· Heads analyse and track reading test results and act on ® ndings.

· Early identi® cation of children with special needs.

· Funds targeted at support teachers for children with SEN, including able

children.

6. A Collaborative Culture

· Staff feel supported by colleagues.

· Advice sought and ideas adapted from SENCOs, Section 11 teachers,

Reading Recovery teachers.

7. A Core of Experienced Primary Teachers

· Reasonable stability of a core of staff keenly interested in literacy.

8. Teachers are United, Committed and Enthusiastic About Literacy

· Teachers share same philosophy: reading skills taught using phonics and

word recognition of 100 most common words; use of two main reading

schemes plus a variety of supplementary material.

· Teachers priorit ise the teaching of literacy skills.

9. Teaching is Targeted, Tightly Planned, Brisk, Motivating and Interactive

· Outstanding or very good teaching in lessons observed.

· Clear targets set for all children on SEN register.

· Well pitched tasks for the more able.

· Tasks are varied, achievable and interesting to children.

· Teachers are very active and constantly interact with children.

10. There is Strong Leadership and Guidance in English

· Clear policies on each Attainment Target in English, showing progression by

year group and giving detailed guidance for teachers.

· Clear policies on each element of writing showing progression by year group

and giving detailed guidance for teachers.

· Clear library skills policies showing progression by year group and giving

detailed guidance for teachers.

· Heads and co-ordinators offer strong leadership and teachers appreciate and

follow their guidance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 18: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

22 B. McCallum

11. Children’ s Progression is Monitored

· Monitoring and mentoring systems often with non-contact time to review

progression in children’ s work.

12. Baseline Testing is in Place

· Reception children do a baseline test.

13. Reading and Writing is Regularly Assessed and Passed Up Records are Used

· Weekly spelling tests, regular reading tests and regular levelled Teacher

Assessments in writing.

· Key Stage Test results and Key Stage Test papers analysed and the ® ndings

used to inform teaching.

· Teachers trust each others’ judgements.

Conclusion

If one measure of school effectiveness is end of Key Stage SAT results, the four

schools in this small study are effective schools. In 1997 they had met or were well

on the way to meeting the targets set for 2002, without any involvement in the

National Literacy Project. The management procedures and teaching practices and

strategies outlined in the 13 characteristics common to the four schools can be seen

as effectiveness factors. Indeed, the level of agreement about effectiveness factors in

this study and other school effectiveness research (Mortimore et al. 1988; Reynolds

et al. 1996b; Sammons et al. 1995); is high (Reynolds 1998).

The effective practices and procedures of the four schools resonate with

recommendations in the National Literacy Strategy, the National Literacy Project

and the Framework for Teaching [2] now prescribed nationally for all primary

schools, particularly in relation to detailed planning, timed pacy lessons and work at

text, sentence and word level.

It seems ® tting that the good practice in these four effective schools has been

recognised and has contributed, through the work of the Task Force on Literacy, to

current advice being offered to all primary schools.

Commentary

The data suggest that the study schools also show `good’ practice in at least two

other literacy-related areas of school management, recently highlighted in Govern-

ment reports.

The ® rst is raising standards of achievement through target-setting at school,

classroom and individual pupil level `stemming from self critical re¯ ection and

analysis of performance’ (OfSTED/DfEE 1996). The heads appear to have created

important conditions for improvement, having led staff in understanding what needs

to be done, in knowing how to go about it and in having the will to do it.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 19: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

Literacy in Four Effective Schools 23

The second is improving the quality of teaching and raising standards by ® nding

ways for specialist teachers of literacy to in¯ uence the teaching of the subject

throughout the school (OfSTED 1997). This is orchestrated by the heads through

both direct teaching and carefully managed strategies that enable the specialist to

in¯ uence the work of the school `while avoiding the mere exchange of classes

between teachers in order to use each other’ s strengths, which rarely has an impact

beyond the classes involved’ (OfSTED 1997).

In addition to these two important initiatives taken by the heads, their `hand’ is

detected in most of the 13 characteristics: in curriculum organisation, curriculum

planning, curriculum content, curriculum review; in pupil assessment and support

for individual needs; in team building and the support of teacher talent.

The search to relate heads’ personal approach to leadership with school effec-

tiveness has proved inconclusive (Fidler 1997) and ® ndings from work on personal

characteristics of leaders is inconsistent (Immegart 1988). However, from this small

study I can only describe something that four heads of four effective schools clearly

have in common (possibly a fourteenth characteristic?).

They appear to be able to think freely, despite the demands of running a school.

Their main priority is pupil achievementÐ giving pupils the best possible chance to

learn and while keeping this in sight, they see everything else as movable. `Solutions

are often radical and step outside old orthodoxies’ (OfSTED 1997). The head-

teachers demonstrate the characteristics of creative thinkers and engage in `possibil-

ity thinking’ (Craft 1997); they are not stumped by one set of circumstances and

they use imagination to ® nd a way round a challenge. In common with creative

thinkers they avoid resistance to change (Moustakas 1967) and they do not see

Government initiatives as criticism of their own practiceÐ they separate the creative

functions of the problem from its judicial functions (Parnes 1970).

The link between school effectiveness and creativity as a personal characteristic

of school leaders is a topic worthy of further investigation.

NOTES

[1] An approach heavily in¯ uenced by The National Literacy Project (commenced September

1996).

[2] A detailed outline written for teachers which describes what has to be planned and what has

to be taught.

REFERENCES

Craft A (1997) Can you Teach Creativity?, Nottingham: Education Now Publication Co-operative.

DfEE Standards and Effectiveness Unit (1998) The National Literacy Strategy Framework for

Teaching, London: DfEE.

Fidler B (1997) School Leadership: some key ideas, School Leadership and M anagement, 17(1),

23± 38.

Immegart GL (1988) Leadership and leader behavior in Boyan NJ (ed.) Handbook of Research

on Educationa l Administration , New York: Longman.

Literacy Task Force (1997) The Implementa tion of the Nationa l Literacy Strategy , London: DfEE.

M ortim ore P, Sam mons P, Stoll L, Lewis D & Ecob R (1988) School M atters: the junior years,

Wells: Open Books.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 20: Literacy in Four Effective Schools

24 B. McCallum

M oustakas C (1967) Creativity and Conformity, New York: Van Nostrand.

OfSTED/DfEE (1996) Setting Targets to Raise Standards: A Survey of Good Practice , London:

DfEE.

OfSTED (1997) Using Subject Specialists to Promote High Standards at Key Stage 2Ð An Illustrative

Survey, London: OfSTED.

OfSTED (1998) The Annual Report of Her M ajesty’ s Chief Inspector of Schools (1996 ± 1997),

London: The Stationery Office.

Parnes SJ (1970) Education and creativity, in Vernon PE (ed.) Creativity, London: Penguin.

Reynolds D (1998) Schooling for Literacy: a review of research on teacher effectiveness and its

implications for contemporary educational policies, Educationa l Review , 50(2), 147± 162.

Reynolds D & Farrell S (1996) Worlds Apart? A Review of International Studies of Educational

Achievement Involving England , London: HMSO.

Reynolds D, Creemers BPM , Hopkins D, Stoll L & Bollen R (1996) M aking Good Schools,

London: Routledge.

Sam mons P, Hillman J & M ortim ore P (1995) Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: a review

of school effectiveness research, London: HMSO.

Sam mons P, Thom as S & M ortimore P (1997) Forging Links: effective schools and effective

departments, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

03:

05 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014