|
A whole-school approach to literacy & numeracy intervention
The model for whole-school intervention is built around three levels of intervention shown diagrammatically as follows.
The three levels of the model can be summarised as follows:
|
Level of intervention
|
Description
|
|
Level 1
|
Schools examine their student data and develop curriculum responses; these can be school policy responses, whole-school approaches to teaching and learning, and approaches and processes for working with their communities.
|
|
A
|
Schools examine their student demographic data to reveal who their students are in terms of prior learning, cultural, linguistic, SES backgrounds and likely impacts from these, and design appropriate curriculum responses in consultation with the community, including professional development for staff.
|
|
B
|
Schools examine the whole school student achievement data to reveal patterns of underachievement. Patterns may be revealed at whole of school level, at year level and at Key Learning Area (KLA) level. Schools develop curriculum responses including hypotheses and strategies for intervention, implement, monitor and review based on further student achievement data generated through assessment and collected.
|
|
Level 2
|
Teachers, in collaboration with support staff and school leaders examine classroom student achievement data to determine collaborative responses that can be implemented through targeted pedagogy (e.g. “Our students have done poorly on the measurement sections of the national numeracy tests; what pedagogies for teaching these concepts can we learn from other teachers? Are we addressing all the curriculum intent expected for this age cohort in measurement? Do we need professional development to teach measurement better?” or “Some of our students are not achieving the reading benchmarks; what might we do differently to address this?”, or “most of our students are not demonstrating standards greater than ‘C’; are our assessment tasks giving them access to an ‘A’ or ‘B’? Is our judgment-making valid – maybe we’re marking them too low?” or “Are our gifted students being sufficiently stretched and intellectually challenged? How do we know and do we know how to do this both in our pedagogy and our assessment?”)
|
|
Level 3
|
Teachers, in collaboration with support staff and school leaders examine individual student achievement data in order to develop collaborative responses that include intensive and highly scaffolded pedagogies. For some students this will occur at enrolment; (e.g. students who are new arrivals from non-English-speaking backgrounds; NESB who require intensive pedagogy for a time to enable them to access the mandated, age-cohort curriculum).
|
A more in-depth discussion of each of the levels of the models, including indicators of successful implementation, follows.
Level 1A
As with all quality whole-school intervention, a whole-school approach to intervention initially begins with:
an examination of demographic data to provide insight into who the students are
followed by whole-school design of curriculum that responds to the student population
implementation of curriculum using pedagogy that is aligned with curriculum intent, assessment and reporting, and with the student population at the school.
Indicators of a successful whole-school approach at Level 1A are as follows:
|
Responses
Level 1A
|
Data used to justify responses
Level 1A
|
Research/Evidence- base used to justify responses
Level 1A
|
|
As a school, we respond with deep knowledge and understanding to our student demographic data when we:
Ä plan and map curriculum intent across the school contextualising it and ensuring maximum opportunities for all students to be challenged and achieve at or above, what is expected for their same-age cohort
Ä plan and prioritise pedagogical choices to maximise opportunities for all students to demonstrate high levels of achievement
Ä plan and audit our assessment choices to maximise opportunities for all students to demonstrate high levels of achievement
Ä align curriculum intent, pedagogical and assessment choices with reporting against moderated standards
Ä allocate professional development funds to build teacher capability in dealing with challenges presented by our students (e.g. Language across the curriculum training, extending Gifted and Talented students)
|
As a school, we are careful to collect and analyse data that will provide the information we need for decision-making aimed at improved student achievement. Examples of data that could provide this information include:
Ä enrolment data; sharpening enrolment questions to help develop a whole-school language and literacy profile (e.g. main language spoken at home)
Ä enrolment data; developing a profile of students that provides insight into enablers and barriers to student demonstration of Essential Learnings and Standards (e.g. homework issues and student interests from which to contextualise units of work)
Ä data gathered from student voice/forums including student ideas about how to raise student achievement data
Ä data gathered from teacher voice/forums including teacher ideas about building teacher confidence and skills for improving student achievement data
|
As a school, we investigate and reflect on the following evidence in making responses:
Ä current research that gives insight into our particular student population
Ä current research that gives insight into actions that have resulted in improved student achievement with like student populations
Ä local evidence of improved student achievement data from schools with like student populations
Ä evidence of improved student achievement data from active and reflective teaching in our school
Ä professional input from structured opportunities for teachers to reflect on practice that is linked to student achievement data
|
Table 1 Level 1A responses
Level 1B
Level 1A is followed by an examination of student achievement data[1] generated as a result of the implementation of this whole-school curriculum. Reflection occurs on the effectiveness of the curriculum design and in particular, their pedagogical choices:
achievement data is examined for patterns that might reveal student results that need immediate attention. (These might include Year 5 numeracy results indicating a large proportion of students achieving below the National benchmark, results in particular Key Learning Areas being mostly ‘C’s, ‘D’s and ‘E’s, or the number of identified gifted students being below what might be expected for this school community)
whole-school discussion about how the school curriculum might be impacting on the results
discussion about, and investigation of, possible strategies that could be put in place to intervene for improvement (e.g. greater ESL support for teachers, professional development for teachers in productive pedagogies or writing authentic assessment tasks, greater involvement of Indigenous community to include Indigenous perspectives)[2]
taking some risks, with principal support, in trying some evidence-based strategies that ‘might work’
implementing the strategies, monitoring student achievement data for improvement and reviewing the effectiveness of the strategy used
if ineffective, proposing another strategy to ‘try’, and so on.
Indicators of a successful whole-school approach to intervention at Level 1B are as follows:
|
Responses
Level 1B
|
Data used to justify responses
Level 1B
|
Research/Evidence- base used to justify responses
Level 1B
|
|
As a school, we respond with deep knowledge and understanding of our student population when we respond to their whole school student achievement data at a whole school level.
|
As a school, we respond at whole-school and cohort levels (e.g. KLA, phase, class) to summative assessment data, including:
Ä reported student achievement on moderated A-E grades (or equivalent in Senior School) across phases
Ä moderated samples of student work
Ä state assessment data (QCATs)
Ä diagnostic continuum data (e.g. Year 2 Net, First Steps in Maths diagnostic map)
· yr 3,5,7,9 National literacy/numeracy data
|
Whole-school strategies are
based on best practice evidence (see Level 1A) and:
Ä have their effectiveness measured against summative assessment data
Ä focus on the improvement of student achievement data and are specific about which data are being targeted and monitored
· are led by the principal
· are supported by curriculum managers (HODs and HOCs)
· involve collaborative decision making
· support teachers with professional development in and out of the classroom
· celebrate improvement in student achievement data
|
Table 2 Level 1B responses
Level 2
This level is frequently referred to as the ‘focussed/targeted teaching’ level. Deep scrutiny of the data generated by students may reveal that some groups of students who have not responded to approaches in Level 1 might require significant additional teaching to achieve the standards expected of their same-age cohort. On the other hand, it may reveal that gifted students are not being challenged to improve on their own personal performance.
Teachers collaborate with other staff including support staff, to provide intervention or additional teaching.
Data at this level should be monitored in an on-going and continuous way so that different strategies can be tried if unacceptable levels of improvement occur as a result of strategies implemented. ‘Unacceptable levels of improvement’ must also be determined for gifted students who are not being intellectually stretched. The ‘pedagogy-assessment’ loop in the curriculum alignment process (Figure 3) describes this process.
Indicators of a successful whole school approach to intervention at Level 2 are as follows:
|
Responses
Level 2
|
Data used to justify responses
Level 2
|
Research/Evidence- base used to justify responses
Level 2
|
|
As a school, we respond collaboratively to maximise the achievement of students belonging to identified groups who have not responded to approaches implemented at Level 1.
|
Data sources from Level 1, plus,
Ä formative assessment data that loops circularly into pedagogy until summative assessment decision-making
(Note: formative assessment data at this level may require a deeper analysis to inform pedagogy)
|
Often referred to as the “focussed teaching” level, involves:
Ä teaching based on best practice evidence (see Level 1A)
Ä focussed teaching using the formative assessment/pedagogy loop (Figure 3)
Ä a collaborative approach, sharing any extra teaching load that might be required amongst teachers
|
Table 3 Level 2 responses
Level 3
This level is sometimes referred to as the ‘intensive teaching’ level. For some students intensive scaffolding may be required to achieve the Essential Learnings by key junctures. In this model the third level of intervention involves the use of intensive pedagogy for short periods of time (for example, in Standard Australian English for English as Second Language learners), or instruction in the use of compensatory tools such as assistive technology. Students who do not respond to this third level of pedagogy will require more intensive assessment involving input from a multidisciplinary team including special education service providers.
Indicators of a successful whole-school approach to intervention at Level 3 are as follows:
|
Responses
Level 3
|
Data used to justify responses
Level 3
|
Research/Evidence- base used to justify responses
Level 3
|
|
As a school, we respond collaboratively to maximising the achievement of particular students who have not responded to approaches implemented at Levels 1 or 2
|
Data sources from Level 2, plus,
Ä formative assessment data that loops circularly into pedagogy until summative assessment decision-making (e.g. deciding which A-E grade will be assigned)
Ä formative assessment data at this level may require deeper analysis including specialist input to inform pedagogy
|
Often referred to as the “intensive teaching” level, involves:
Ä teaching based on best practice evidence (see Level 1A)
Ä focussed teaching using the formative assessment/pedagogy loop (Figure 3)
Ä a collaborative approach, sharing any extra teaching load that might be required amongst teachers
|
Table 4 Level 3 responses
At all levels of the approach, teachers continue to closely monitor student responsiveness to pedagogy using the ‘pedagogy-assessment’ loop (Figure 3).
Student learning is monitored at increasing levels of intensity at each level with increasing involvement of other staff in support.
Roles and Responsibilities
Ä In implementing a whole-school approach to intervention, schools have found that a number of elements or enablers are critical, including:
Ä a commitment to a whole-school approach
Ä strong school leadership from a leadership team that includes the principal
Ä a culture that enables and supports teachers to take risks
Ä planning processes that focus on the students in the school and their learning needs as revealed through their data (both demographic and achievement)
Ä use of evidence-based approaches that have worked with like cohorts of students
Ä a culture where teachers and school leaders talk to each other about their students’ learning
Ä a shared understanding by teachers of the intended learning goals they want for all students
Ä a commitment by all staff to the curriculum alignment process (Figure 2) and reflection as part of the ‘pedagogy-assessment loop’ (Figure 3)
Ä a commitment by all staff to using student data in decision-making
Ä a focus on intervention as it enables improvement
Ä a culture of continuous improvement.
Most of these enablers depend on strong school leadership. This leadership provides direction, influences and is involved with, implementation at each of the three levels of the model.
For more information contact the Head of Campus.
|
A Whole School Approach 
