| |
Shaw Wood Primary Case Study
Shaw Wood Primary School
in Doncaster came into existence in September 2003 when the old
infant and junior schools were merged under the leadership of a
new head teacher. Serving a community where the collieries that
once supported it had long since disappeared, families were
forced to look outside for employment – a fact reflected in
the 20% entitlement to free school meals. Although there are few EAL children within the school, many arrive with weak oral
skills, displayed in a limited range of vocabulary and are often
unable to communicate in complete sentences. In addition to
this, listening skills tend to be under developed with many
children unfamiliar with simple nursery rhymes, fairy stories or
games – a scenario, I suspect, that will be familiar to many
of you.
In order to redress this, Nursery and Reception had
traditionally used a ‘mix and match’ approach to teaching
reading skills: a combination of Look and Say, various
commercial phonics schemes and a range of games such as
‘letter lotto’. From Year One upwards, literacy was taught
strictly according to the requirements of the NLS. As a result
of this, some children did indeed take off, successfully
learning letter/sound correspondences and eventually becoming
competent writers. However, there remained a significant group
who continued to falter: although many of the children appeared
to have a superficial phonics knowledge, they were unable to
apply this to unfamiliar reading contexts and the reading
strategies they carried forward into Key Stage Two seemed to be
fragile. It was clear that, if we were serious in our mission to
facilitate every child’s success, something more radical had
to be done.
Why did we choose Success for All? Certainly, its underpinning
element of co-operative learning (based on the research that
shows children learn 95% of what they teach to someone else) was
a crucial influencing factor. There are many phonics schemes out
there but this presented a major difference. In addition, the
programme’s holistic approach gave a structure that resulted
in a consistency of teaching from Nursery all the way through to
Year Six. We were already aware that many children were arriving
in Year Three deficient in the strategies that they needed to
become successful readers in Key Stage Two and we were hopeful
that this would provide a structure that allowed all children to
assimilate the basic ‘building blocks’ of reading as, and
when, they were ready to cope with them. A clear system of
continual assessment, analysis and diagnosis of children’s
needs also gave us confidence that we would be planning
appropriately for every child.
Our aims on beginning the programme were twofold: obviously, to
raise levels of achievement for all children (and in so doing to
boost our value-added scores) but also, less tangibly, to
improve our children’s levels of confidence in themselves as
readers. What we wanted was for all children to be succeeding at
their own level rather than to be feeling that they were
continually playing ‘catch-up’. Our optimism that Success
for All would be able to deliver this was borne out by an
initial, inevitable scepticism (not another new initiative!)
being replaced, as a result of intensive research and visits to
several schools already implementing the programme, by a 95%
staff vote of confidence to go ahead.
Admittedly, as with any new initiative, we did have a few
reservations to begin with. Firstly, the number of phonics
sounds that children in Reception would learn each week (three
rather than the one previously introduced) – in practice, this
turned out to be no problem at all as all previously-taught
sounds are revisited alongside the introduction of new ones.
Secondly, the introduction of vowel phonemes to Reception
children: would they be mature enough to cope with this? And
lastly, and perhaps, most importantly, what about the issue of
much older children working alongside younger ones (Years One to
Six)? Actually, it very quickly became apparent that this was
not an issue at all – once children were allowed to succeed at
their own level, older children in particular made incredible
progress and achieved a potential that was quite simply, not
possible before.
The training experience was a positive one: there was much to
learn in the initial two-day sessions but follow-up sessions
provided the opportunity to review skills alongside the very
necessary chance to stop and reflect on practice. Thorough
manuals were also provided and we were confident that support
was always available at the end of a phone.
Staff in KS1 were very quickly impressed by the new
‘puppet-power’ afforded to them: getting Alphie, the cute,
green alligator, to talk to children in ‘Alphie-talk’
(segmenting words into phonemes) focussed them in a way that had
not previously occurred and this visual aspect was maximised by
letting their imaginations run riot: e.g. dressing Alphie up to
reflect the time of year or the theme of the current book being
read. Children too felt they were taking part in varied and
fun-filled activities but, even more importantly, could see the
purpose of what they were doing, further motivating them to meet
their learning objectives.
As regular assessments are an integral part of the programme, we
were soon able to make a judgement about its initial impact. The
most immediately obvious successes appeared to be with those
older, special-needs children who, to begin with, had been
assessed as having insufficient phonics skills to move into the
Wings (NC below Level 1a) programme. These children picked up
the phonics basics astonishingly quickly and soon shot ahead
into more age-appropriate parts of the programme. (One child
began Year Six in September 2004 performing at level 1B for
English and finished the Year at 4C!)
Similarly, lower down the school, it was clear that all the
children in Reception were assimilating and applying the sounds
they needed to become readers, rather than just a few as in
previous years. Towards the end of the year, these children
could also apply these skills to writing. Results overall were
as follows:
|
Cohort 43 |
-P7 |
P7 |
P8 |
1C |
1B |
1A |
2C |
2B |
2A |
|
JUNE 04 |
35 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
MAY 05 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
15 |
11 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
|
NOV 05 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
13 |
19 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
These results are for our current year 2 cohort who have now had four terms of the programme. Data only kicks in from year one so comparisons for the current year one would not be applicable as 2004 data is not available.
Four terms after beginning the programme, we can begin to make judgements as to whether this impact has been sustained. In general, (and unlike in the previous year), children with special needs are tending to gravitate towards their year-group for instruction. Children in Wings groups (NC 2a upwards) are often still having their reading of real books supplemented by phonics instruction as, previously, they had not acquired the necessary strategies to deal with unfamiliar words (this was apparent even in children who had previously been regarded as ‘good readers’). As children now feed in to the Wings groups from Roots, this is becoming increasingly unnecessary as they arrive already equipped with these skills. Reception children have performed extremely well compared to the authority average. The table below shows the percentage of children at the end of Foundation Stage, July 2005, who met or exceeded the Early Learning Goals compared to the national average. This is not the picture that we have seen in previous years.
| |
4-7
Indicates working within the Early Learning Goals |
8-9
Indicates met or working above the Early Learning Goals |
Personal, Social and
Emotional Development |
School % |
National % |
School % |
National % |
Disposition and Attitude
|
31.8 |
40.0 |
68.2 |
59 |
Social Development
|
34.1 |
49.0 |
63.6 |
47.0 |
Emotional Development
|
40.9 |
42.0 |
59.1 |
52.0 |
Communication, Language,
Literacy |
|
|
|
|
|
Language for communication and thinking |
34.1 |
47.0 |
59.1 |
47.0 |
Linking sounds and letters
|
50.0 |
50.0 |
47.7 |
33.0 |
Reading
|
36.4 |
56.0 |
61.4 |
36.0 |
Writing
|
52.3 |
56.0 |
45.5 |
28.0 |
Knowledge and
Understanding
of the World |
9.1 |
47.0 |
90.9 |
47.0 |
Physical Development
|
9.1 |
37.0 |
90.9 |
60.0 |
Creative Development
|
13.6 |
53.0 |
86.4 |
43.0 |
As a staff, we feel privileged that we are now able to give children so much more than before. The programme is well thought-out and the emphasis on partner work with children supporting each other with their practice of reading strategies previously modelled by the teacher keeps them actively learning and constantly engaged. We also like the fact that we now have a wealth of knowledge about each child’s precise range of reading skills and find this invaluable in discussing specific progress with parents as well as for planning next steps. We would say that this programme is definitely making an impact in helping children to achieve our expectations of their potential, and in some cases, beyond. Teacher self-esteem has also risen enormously both as a result of children’s attainment and also by the numbers of visitors who now come to the school to observe how this success has been realised. The school’s mission has always been to ‘put children first’ (though not to the detriment of the staff) and this programme most definitely fulfils that.
So, what is it about Success for All that has made the difference? We feel that the activities in Nursery and Reception now catch all the children rather than just some of them. None of the activities on its own is significantly different from anything that was offered before; however, the daily input ensures a consistency of teaching and a rigorous intensity that was previously lacking. A confidence that all letter sounds are constantly revisited and a set of very clear outcomes and expectations empowers the staff that deliver it. The opportunity for able children to be ‘promoted’ into a group working a higher level also gives these children a real chance to fly.
The scheme is underpinned with a concrete basis of training and support and the ‘wholeness’ of the programme (detailed lesson plans/order of activities) leaves nothing to chance. The order in which the sounds are introduced ensures that whole words can soon be tackled confidently and the measurement of smallest steps informs us exactly how each child is performing. All Year One children and above work at their own level of ability in homogenous, focussed teaching groups and sustained absence is not necessarily the disaster it might have been as everything is reviewed and children can slot back in at the level they were last working at. As previously stated, co-operative learning has proved a powerful learning tool and this has now, almost by default, been driven through all curriculum areas with children expected to discuss all their learning with their peers. This constant engagement with their own learning has also had a direct impact on children’s standards of behaviour in general.
It has to be said that the above has only been possible because the programme has been implemented with an enormous level of commitment from all involved (this includes the governors as well as the teaching staff) as well as being very clearly driven from the top, including the appointment of a dedicated facilitator who has been allowed appropriate time to consolidate her own understanding of the programme as well as to support the rest of the staff. However, I would say that there is no reason why any school that was prepared to implement the programme with rigorous application combined with strong leadership and total commitment to raising achievement for every child, should not be able to replicate this success.
|
|
|
