literacy in four effective schools
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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