Pearson-Exploring-Effective-Pedagogy-in-Primary-Schools

Group C: Poor Schools: Low academic effectiveness and poor quality pedagogyTable 5: Criteria for inclusion in Group C: Poor schools(low academic effectiveness, poor quality pedagogy)*SourceNational AssessmentResidual Scores (RS)(a measure of schooleffectiveness)InstructionalEnvironmentObservation (IEO)Classroom ObservationSystem (COS-5)Possible scoresrange from(low to high)Minimum scores required to be included inthe low academic effectiveness, poor qualitypedagogy group1 to 5 RS ≤ 3 in both English and mathsANDat least one RS ≤ 21 to 3 IEO ≤ 2 if COS-5 = 1ORIEO = 1 if COS-5 = 2 or 3 **1 to 5 COS-5 ≤ 3 if the IEO = 1COS-5 =1 if the IEO = 2 *** Percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) was available for each school and was checked to ensurethat schools with both higher and lower proportions of pupils eligible for FSM were included in each category.** Schools where quality of pedagogy on both scales was medium (IOE=2; COS-5=3) but both residual scoreswere low (RS≤ 2) were included in this group. Three schools fell into this category.The remainder of the schools fell in between or around these categories, apart from a smallnumber (eight schools) that did not fit clearly into any category and so were redundant to theaim of selecting schools that could clearly expose, for both policy makers and practitioners,the practices associated with excellent, good and poor pedagogy. Each “typical” effectivenessand quality of pedagogy group contained schools from a variety of settings (inner city, shire andrural) and had a range of levels of advantage of pupil intake (i.e., higher and lower percentagesof pupils eligible for free school meals). A complete list of schools and their characteristics inrelation to school national assessments, and quality ratings, can be found in Appendix 2.Having established a robust sample of 82 schools and rigorous methods for collecting data,the EPPSE research scrutinised the observations to see if there were some practices thatdifferentiated school and teachers across a range of effectiveness. The findings are reported inthe next section of this report. For the full findings from this phase of the research, see Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2011.Evidence from Research | 15