Thread by @jpembroke

Reducing data collection and workload. My 3 top tips:
1) Stop tracking learning objectives
2) Reduce parent reports to A5, or even better postcard size
3) Limit data for governors to a single side of A4

When I say ‘stop tracking learning objectives’ I don’t mean stop having learning objectives (they’re in the curriculum!); I mean, stop requiring teachers to record and RAG rate all their assessments against endless tick lists of learning objectives on paper, excel or system.

I recently heard a rep of one particular popular tracking system advocating their approach, saying “it only takes 20 minutes a day, or 1.5 hours a week to keep on top of.” That’s 60 hours a year! For what? For what impact. Stop this! It’s ridiculous.

Parent reports (Primary). As a parent I’d be quite happy with a report card showing prior attainment (eg KS1), current attainment, and effort in core subjects, attendance %, a few targets, and an overall teacher’s comment. It’s doable. All other info given at parents’ evening.

Reporting to governors. This gets way out of hand and not helped by numerous data sources on offer. For key stage data, I’d go for FFT dashboard every time. Add to that p1-3 of IDSR ie the areas to investigate and context summary.

Curriculum & Standards Committee should certainly have sight of entire IDSR but it’s really not that useful beyond p1-3. FFT does the job better. The school summary report in ASP (ie the entire contents of ASP in pdf) is horrible. Pages and pages of tiny numbers.

Ideally, we want 3 years of results (GLD, Phonics, KS1, KS2) alongside nationals, an indication of whether sig+/- or sig improvement/decline. Groups? be careful, groups can be small. Focus on FSM and low/mid/high prior attainment. Data for most groups (esp SEND) is misleading.

Presenting data on current cohorts to (Primary) governors. Show % at/above expected in core subjects for each year group alongside results of previous statutory assessment to provide context. Eg Y5 72% at/above exp compared to 65% EXS+ at KS1 3 years ago.

Any further breakdown into groups needs to be treated with caution. I think average standardised scores over time are a better way of comparing pupils groups than %s but even this is not without issues. Overlap of groups is a big problem.

Sometimes we have to admit we can’t provide meaningful data, regardless of the pressure on us to do so. Everyone dealing with data needs to understand it’s limitations and flaws. Sadly, that ‘cynics guide’ is missing from most training.

All this data impacts on workload and we have to ask: is it worth it? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? We can spend hours, days even, generating data that is unreliable and possibly meaningless. Sometimes less is more.

Note that statutory regs require some info on achievement in all subjects, not just core. Wish could edit a tweet 🙄