Browser does not support script.
Receive regular email updates and personalise your pages. Register now!
Mr Adrian Percival & Ms Susan TranterMatthew Arnold School Oxfordshire, England, United Kingdom
Matthew Arnold School has experienced considerable success as a specialist science college over the last two years, and for the three years prior to that, as well. Since 1999, when a new leadership team, including Head, Deputy and three assistant heads was created, our GCSE results have increased from 43% to 68%, A-level results have improved from 30% ' A ' , ' B ' grades to 50%, at the same time as we have almost doubled the size of the Sixth Form. In an area of stable demographics, our school roll has increased from 730 to 980 as a result of attracting large numbers of pupils from outside our traditional area.
We attribute this success to a range of factors, but fundamentally the improvement of our school is rooted in the aims and values we set out as a staff in late 1999. The process of re-establishing the school ' s aims as an early activity of the new leadership of the school may sound like a textbook approach to securing and sharing the vision for the school. In fact, it was more pragmatic than this. The aims of the school previously contained no real relevance to the needs of the school or the daily lives of the students and teachers working within it. The existing ' aims statement ' was a recipe for directionless leadership. Therefore, as a pragmatic response to this, the leadership of the school set about creating a new statement of aims and values. The following statement was arrived at after whole-staff discussion and consultation with governors
' Our high expectations of achievement and behaviour; of openness, honesty, trust and mutual respect, lead to the well-ordered and purposeful environment that is the prerequisite for effective learning.
We encourage our students to work hard and to be enthusiastic in all they do. We want them to attain the highest standards of which they are capable, so that they can face the challenging world ahead with confidence and assurance. We value right attitudes and strength of character and, by encouraging these in our students, we will help them become good citizens in their future walks of life.
We aim to ensure our students:
Although it may be the case that not every member of staff could quote this statement verbatim, it is undoubtedly the case that every member of staff does know the essence of our aims and values. It is for this reason that this statement has provided such a powerful compass for all that we do in the school.
The work we do to help children achieve, to create a good learning environment and to provide students with the resources and opportunities they need for success are all implicit in this statement of aims and values. Furthermore, the place of students at the heart of the process is clear and so, in our day-to-day lives at Matthew Arnold School, both teachers and their students understand our purpose, which is the success of every individual within the school. Inevitably, then, the notion of ' student voice ' is something we have to take very seriously.
Perhaps the most visible way in which we ensure students have a voice is our school council. This is an important part of our school life. The council is run by the senior prefects (head boy and girl and their deputies), who are elected by the students and teachers through an Electoral College system. These posts are high profile and sought after. In fact, last year there were fourteen candidates, all of whom had to subject themselves to a manifesto statement on the ' hustings ' .
The school council has an important role to play within the school. The senior prefects meet the head each week, members of the school council take seats on working parties that draft school policy for the governors, on such matters as equal opportunities, bullying, behaviour, and so forth. The school council has a regular meeting with the governors to give its views on the school and how it should be improved. The school council is also involved in the recruitment of teachers and, in particular, the recruitment of senior staff for the school.
Does the school council have an impact? Well, the agenda over the last few years has mostly revolved around premises matters. Complaints have included the state of the toilets (inevitably), the canteen, various classrooms, mud and drainage around the site, and so on. These issues have all been tackled with considerable investment into all the areas that the school council has been dissatisfied with. So to that extent, we believe that school council is a considerable success. Indeed, two years ago, our school council ran a training day for school councils across the county. The senior prefects (with the assistance of the Head of Sixth Form) invited school councils from all the other schools for a day of workshops on making the school council effective.
Indeed, the success of our school council could be the topic of this paper in itself. However, we find that there is still a significant area where we have not been able to make progress, and that is the impact of the council on the learning experience of the students. Ideally, we see the council as providing a forum for students to discuss matters of teaching and learning, the curriculum, and to have an input into matters such as assessment and target setting. It has to be said that, thus far, with a few exceptions such as the council ' s school satisfaction survey and a recent discussion on assessment for learning, they have proved stubbornly difficult to shift from matters relating to the premises in general, and toilets and food in particular!
A much more significant strand of development of ' student voice ' , in relation to learning, has evolved alongside the student council. One of the tasks facing the school in 1999 was to increase the size of the Sixth Form (it was 72 then, a barely viable number, especially as, at the time, the context was of the doom and gloom of the arrival of the Learning and Skills Council, doom and gloom that was wildly exaggerated, as some of us at the time predicted).
As part of the marketing strategy, the headteacher interviewed each member of year 11. The intention at the time was principally to discuss with year 11 students their future plans and to tell them that they should be staying on in the Sixth Form. In these terms, the campaign was highly successful. The ' staying on ' rate rose in one year from 26% to 45% and has gone on to 60% now. But the much more interesting side effect was the extent to which these meetings gave the opportunity for other discussions to take place, not only about careers and destinations (as originally planned), but also about students ' likes and dislikes within the school (toilets and food featuring heavily here). Most significantly, students expressed their opinions about their performance in the mock examinations (which were going on alongside these interviews) and how they were going to make a difference to their final GCSE performance.
One of the striking things about these meetings was the sense in which this was the most interest any individual teacher had ever taken in many of the students taking part. After all, how often does a student at school get to spend five or ten minutes discussing themselves, their work and their aspirations with a teacher? Some students are very demanding of teacher time and will rack up many hours during their time at school, while others will barely open their mouths and will never have a conversation of any quality with any adult at school. Of course, these meetings were only one in a whole range of strategies employed within the school to improve attainment. However, we have been sufficiently convinced of its efficacy to spread the practice out from year 11 into every other year group in the school.
Of course, this is a major undertaking, not least because it equates to about 6-7 weeks of work (900 students with a ten minute interview is 150 hours and therefore six weeks work). There are many things that we could do and so the opportunity to choose another activity that was at once so enormous, yet had the potential to make a real difference, meant that we were universally in favour of committing ourselves to the project.
Our discussion followed, with a consideration of the ' when ' , the ' who ' and the purpose of the interviews. The framework we established looks like this:
YEAR 7 . In the autumn term of year 7, each tutor group is interviewed by a member of the leadership team. The purpose is to talk about settling in and to share with students the outcomes of the cognitive ability tests (CATs) we administer in early September. We record the outcomes of the conversations on a MIDAS event log from the SIMS suite. We were struck by the number of children who, when told that they were very able (in some cases in the top 4% of the ability range nationally) said that this was the first time that they had been told this information.
TOWARDS THE END OF YEAR 7. When they have just completed their end of year exams, one person (one of the assistant heads) interviews the entire year group and talks to them about their progress, and agrees on targets for the next year. What is striking is the willingness, and indeed readiness, with which children tell us about how they are getting on, what they need to do to improve and where they see their progress in the future.
YEAR 8. We hold our year 8 exams in the spring term and this is followed by another interview with one of the assistant heads in the leadership team. The focus of these interviews is very much about maintaining the momentum. Year 8 can be the time when students ' attainment can decline (particularly with boys, as girls will commence their growth spurt during this period). Talking about targets again focuses attention on the academic purpose of schooling - but we also bring in the extra-curricular dimension. Our colleague who carries out the year 8 interviews is a team leader for the heads of year. Frequently, her contact with year 8 is on disciplinary matters and so it gives her a welcome opportunity to engage in a different type of conversation with the pupils.
YEAR 9 . This is a busy year for students, as there are the optional subjects to be chosen and also preparation for the Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SATs). Here, the student ' s interview is focused around the optional subjects - discussing how the choices have been made and how they fit in with career aspirations. We allow students a free choice for GCSE but give them guidance. We provide the student and the parents with a ' by subject ' summary of the data on the student. So, based on our knowledge of the students, the assessment data, the CAT data and our knowledge of their work, we recommend that a child chooses their optional subjects from a list of five or six. They are, of course, free to disregard the guidance but we ask them to justify their choice.
YEAR 10. Like many successful schools, we set challenging targets for students and this really comes to the fore in Key Stage 4. We use the CAT, Key Stage 3 data and other assessment data to set targets for GCSE. The target-setting process has evolved from an intuitive approach (e.g., well, the department achieved 55% this year, can they do 60% next year?) to a refined process where each pupil was set a target for each subject. These individual pupil targets were collated into class targets and then into class and department targets. At this point, the targets were shared with students.
If this process was to be refined further - and we believed it needed to be - the next stage was to involve students in the target-setting process. So, once the targets are created using CAT, Fischer Family Trust figures and exam grades, we send them out for consultation to subject departments. They look at them - some targets are raised but targets can only be lowered after discussion.
Teachers identify the barriers to progress for each of the students in their classes. The deputy head interviews all of the students individually and gives them a sheet with their targets on - the information on the barriers is really useful here because students are told that your teacher says that you can get a Grade ' B ' - based on your ability - but you won ' t because you have been absent for 10% of lessons or your writing up skills aren ' t as strong as your practical ones (so what are you going to do about it?). In some cases, student want higher targets - they tell us what needs to happen to help them to achieve these.
YEAR 11. These interviews have been described earlier in this paper and, again, they are in a context of dialogue that is focused on academic achievement and sharing the joint enterprise of achieving a personal best at school.
SIXTH FORM. These interviews are very different and the aspect that sets them apart is that parents are involved. It struck us that, as children get older, their parents become increasingly remote from their children ' s education. Perhaps when students are in the Sixth Form we think that, as young adults, they should be the point of reference. However, this misses out on a powerful source of support and pressure for the Sixth Form. Indeed, the fact that, for the most part, parents are financially supporting students who are old enough to leave school and gain paid employment, is highly significant at this stage of their education.
Our head of Sixth Form takes two days out of teaching and interviews each student with their parents (and it is remarkable how willing parents are to take time out of work to take part in this - in some cases, it is unpaid leave). The effect of having a parent arriving in the Sixth Form common room during the school day, to take part in a meeting with their child and the head of Sixth Form, has to be seen to be believed. We don ' t think the Sixth Form common room has ever been so tidy or quiet for so long!
On its own, a ten-minute interview doesn ' t sound very much. However, the fact that it happens each year at various points means that children develop a relationship with the leadership team that is focused on their personal and academic development. Our pupils tell us very readily if they are not satisfied with the progress they are making (they are very loyal to their teachers but will say if they think there are weaknesses in the class teacher ' s control or standards set).
Making all of this happen requires a commitment to do the interviewing. We make a public statement that this is what we do and so we have a responsibility to make sure that it does. Having all of the data is equally important because it transforms what would be a pleasant chat into a focused discussion on a child ' s progress. We take a year group each, and interview every student, because we believe that the consistency of approach that comes from having one person speak to all students brings benefits that would not emerge otherwise. From a practical point of view, it is easier to blank out a week to do these interviews than a few days several times a year.
It might be observed that interviewing every single student is a waste of time. After all, most of them are set fair and know what they are doing; after all they have their Connexions interviews (!). Surely it would be better to provide a more targeted approach to those who are underachieving, or include those who are exceptionally able, or any of the other sub-groupings we choose to look at within schools. We have discussed the pros and cons of all of this but it is our conviction that this work should be seen as an entitlement for every student in the school. Every student has their own needs and reasons for attention. However, most importantly, we believe that every student matters and we want everyone to know that.
At the outset of this paper we described how significant setting the aims and values of the school had been in creating our direction and our future. That we have this vision that is subscribed to by everyone in the school is of the greatest importance in our success over the last five years. That students are at the heart of the process of education is a truism, but a truism that, in our experience, is not always necessarily evident.
At Matthew Arnold, it is clear to students that they have a school council and that, perhaps vicariously, they have an influence on the school. But it is easy for young people to be cynical about the school council and, as we know, cynicism can sometimes appear to be an attractive option to those who work in organisations, either as students, or indeed, as part of the workforce! We do think that our school council is a significant part of our school improvement over the years, and it is demonstrable evidence of our commitment to the values and aims espoused above.
We also think that our interview programme provides a considerably more powerful expression of the student voice. It tells of our strong commitment to openness and honesty with students about their progress, their cognitive ability and their targets. The data-based interviews help to ensure that students trust our interest in their progress and welfare. Hard information in some schools we have worked in has been kept away from students, on the grounds that it may be ' demotivating ' . Our view is that it is our duty to be open and honest with students, in a sensitive way, of course, when the news is not good. This honesty stands above the more patronising approach favoured by other schools - it is an essential part of our respect for every individual in the school. That this is coupled with our openness to hear and respond to the sometimes (but thankfully, rarely) critical comments that can emerge, provides further evidence of the importance we attach to students ' views and to the respect we have for them.
Through the programme, each student from 11 to 18 years old will take part in a total of between 45 and 75 minutes of individual discussion with a member of our leadership team about themselves and their progress at school. Records are kept and subsequent interviews build upon the conversations that have gone before. We are confident that this is a powerful way of helping young people fulfil their potential. We think it is powerful example of how people should relate to, and care for, one another. Consequently, we are certain that it helps young people grow into mature adults ready to take their place in society. It is not always easy for school leaders to ascertain exactly to what extent they achieve their school aims, but we are confident that our interview programme is a significant part of the improvement we have seen. We believe that it provides a real lever for the students to have an impact upon their own learning experience at school.
Mr Adrian Percival has been headteacher of Matthew Arnold School since 1999. Prior to this he was the deputy head of France Hill School, in Surrey, and before this he worked in schools in Berkshire and Staffordshire in a variety of roles, including head of Physics and GNVQ Coordinator. Since Adrian ' s appointment to Matthew Arnold, the school has raised its GCSE performance from 43% to 68% 5+ ' A* ' - ' C ' grades; and first preferences for year 7 have gone from 112 in 1999 to 235 this year. During the last few years the school has achieved Investors in People status, Science College status and has won a school achievement award for improvement in GCSE results.
In September 2004 Adrian became Executive Head of a partnership of Matthew Arnold School and Drayton School in Banbury. The partnership ' s task is to improve standards of attainment at Drayton School and to ensure that it meets its target of 45% 5+ ' A* ' - ' C ' at GCSE in 2006, from the base of 15% this year.
Outside of his work as a headteacher, Adrian is an NPQH tutor, he has carried out consultancy work for Oxfordshire LEA, the Specialist Schools Trust and has written for ' Managing Schools Today ' and ' Headlines ' . Adrian has also published texts for Physics GCSE.
Ms Susan Tranteris Associate Head of Matthew Arnold School and Headteacher-designate for Fitzharrys School, in Abingdon. She has worked in a range of secondary schools, including single-sex, grammar, secondary modern and comprehensive. Her responsibilities have included Head of Sixth Form, Head of Mathematics, primary liaison, teaching and learning.
Susan is a research associate for the National College of School Leadership, researching top talent programmes and performance management. Her ' Hotseat ' was one of the most popular to date, with nearly 6000 ' hits ' . Susan was recently a guest speaker at the NCSL ' s Leading Edge conference on ' Growing Leadership Potential ' .
Currently Susan is working as a consultant school leader in a school of concern. This LEA secondment is to help raise attainment, improve curriculum monitoring and provide leadership consultancy to members of the leadership team. She is author of ' From Teacher to Middle Manager ' (Pearson (2000)) and ' Diary of a Deputy ' (Routledge (2002).
Adrian and Susan have co-written ' How to Run a School Successfully ' , which is to be published by Continuum later in 2004.
Buy publications by the author
Contribute a discussion paper to this year's online conferences on the transformation of education