 Felly mae'n gynch chi'n gweithio y gweithlach, ond yw'n rhan o'n mynd i'r gweithio ddechrau. Ond rydw i'n cael ei gweithio, rydw i ddim yn cyd-gweithio i'r gweithio. A'r ddweud i'r lluniau yn y lluniau, ac yn ddweud i'n cael ei dweud i'r gweithio, ac mae'n ddweud i'r gweithio i'r gweithio i ddweud i ddweudio'r gweithio i ddweud o'r ddweud. Thank you, Steve. Next session, we'll try and stimulate as much conversation as discussion as we have had for the last 90 minutes or so. So we recognise or I certainly recognise that it has been a good discussion today but even yesterday in relation to progression measures or indeed value added. So we have been working with Alps and I think it's in fairness to say we've been working with them for probably no more than three weeks. Giving them the challenge to develop a proof of concept more than anything at the moment, a value added model. So they're going to talk about what they've done so far, they're going to share that with you in terms of warts and all. And just to point out, and then explain this in a bit more detail, the model that we're proposing is based upon national tests. So for example, those pupils sitting GCSEs in the summer would have sat national tests in year six. So we have potentially a model that will be valid certainly for the next five years. There is no intention of using personalised assessments. When I started the session earlier, I gave you a few givens and I've got a few that I want to give to you now and these are really important. What you're going to hear today is part of transitional arrangements. As I said, we may have a model for the next five years. Crucially, this is not part of high stakes accountability. This is something that we have no intention of publishing at a national level. Our pitch to you, if you want, is we potentially have a tool for you to use as part of your evaluation, not part of anything that we're going to publish. I think it's really important just to keep hold of those kind of key messages. So without further ado, if I can ask John and Sue to come to the stage and they'll take you through the thinking so far. Thank you, Steve. Boroddan, good morning everybody. We're really delighted to be working with you and Welsh Government on a value added progress model for secondary schools. Your views are important in terms of co-construction and there will be time towards the end for you to discuss and ask us questions. And we, two or three, we would like to put to you and maybe get response by show of hands. Steve's already underlined that everything we're going to talk about today is nothing to do with accountability. The slide you can see on the screen there focuses on school improvement and it's absolutely focused on trying to ensure that each pupil makes progress to achieve their potential by the time they're 16. You'll all understand that in any VA progress model, moving a young person from a G to an F or indeed an A to an A star has exactly the same impact as moving a young person from a D to a C. And the model we're going to talk about today will both provide you with summative analysis based on the outcomes at Key Stage 4, but also the ability to track youngsters all the way from year 7 to 11. And I think in some ways that's even more important so that you'll be able to have impact during the five years based on the progress that young people are making with you. There's nothing new on the model that you're looking at there except as Steve has just underpinned that it's the literacy and numeracy tests that will provide the baseline to measure progress from rather than the year 6 teacher assessments. The merit of the Welsh national tests are they're universally available and they're sufficiently granular to enable you to set appropriately challenging targets for young people based on them. And in our model we would suggest though we would not impose that these could be set for all youngsters regardless of their gender, their ethnicity, or indeed their disadvantaged background to try to set aspirations appropriately high for all youngsters in your school. The next slide basically shows one possible model for how the baseline could be created using a synthesised average score. That's no way set in tablets of stone, it's just a demonstration slide. And the following four slides are simply going to be based on the modelling the company has already done, the technical team back at the ranch to try to demonstrate that the Welsh national tests will work well as a baseline. I'm not through time going to go into those in any great detail today, but actually that one does show that the synthesised score is a very, very good match. The next three slides are going to look at subjects and exemplify the relationship between the Welsh national test scores and the GCSE outcomes. The first one we're looking at is maths. They're all showing a very good coefficient in terms of correlation. The next one is English and also a very strong correlation and just to vary it with a subject that doesn't appear to bear any resemblance to say the numeracy or the literacy tests, then there's geography as well. And clearly we probably do need to do going forward much more focused work to get absolute models for you that work well for everybody. I'm switching the focus now to something that's a fundamental part of the national mission and that's raising the attainment of those students who are EFSM. In short, at the moment, perhaps too few of students from deprived communities do well enough at Key Stage 4 to enable them to progress on to level three courses. And clearly if this model does enable you to track the EFSM students both as individuals and as a group, which is our intention, we should be able to ensure that more of them keep up rather than try to catch up so that actually the transformation that, for example, Kirsty Williams was talking about yesterday will be something that in time can be achieved. I'm going to slow down here for a minute now because that model that you've got there entitled essential features I think needs a little bit of explanation. Central to our model is the idea that all of the analysis should be done as much as possible in a secure online and interactive environment that we clearly can't demonstrate for you today, but we can describe. And that would be both for end of year 11 results and also for in-year tracking. I'm going to talk about the results data to begin with. In our view, it needs to be timely. And actually Steve Munby said yesterday we need timely evidence about how to improve. And without disrespecting anybody, data that comes into schools based on my experience admittedly in England, data that comes into schools in December or January is all very useful for academic interest. But it doesn't actually fire the improvement at the right time of year. Our model is going to say that the upload of data around results day will lead to both instantaneous analysis online and the guarantee that you would also have a PDF report that broke down the analysis for you at that point. And the analysis would be, there'd be some overall school analysis, but there'd be lots of analysis of how each subject performed will demonstrate some of this in a minute, how teaching sets perform, how all significant groups, not just EFSM perform, but clearly crucially as well what was the impact at each individual pupil of the five-year journey that they'd had in your school. And without overpinning it, all of that would also be available in year, year seven, year eight, year nine, year ten, year eleven. And I said it already, but personally as a former school leader, I actually think the formative aspects of this model are the crucial ones, getting the ability to actually make that difference in young people's lives at the right time so that, for example, if a group of young people look like they're slipping behind in year eight, well actually you can do something about it right then. Now we're going to show you a few slides that demonstrate their only models, they're not in tablets of stone, but demonstrate some of the ways the data could be presented. I'm pretending here that I've actually filtered a whole year group so that you can only see the EFSM students who are also white British and see how either they're getting on or alternatively how they have got on. And please remember that in our real model you'd be able to look at this interactively, click on subjects and move to the subjects and so forth. But clearly this particular presentation can be read two ways, horizontally and vertically. I'm not sure you'll be able to pick out students 752, but he is in all of your schools. He's a youngster who actually at the moment has been very hard to reach. Every single lozenge is a purple colour and on this demonstration model purple means at least two grades below the targets. So you can see immediately somebody who maybe it's mental health issues but somebody who needs intensive help and support. You can also see some students who really you'd want to be celebrating with immediately. On the third, fourth and fifth row there are students who have no blue lozenges. They're either green meaning matched or bettered or amber meaning one grade, one grade below. A very demanding, challenging target. And some students and there may be the interesting ones are very varied grades. For example, 698 has got some green grades but some blue grades. So what's going on with that young person that they're actually engaged and successful in some of their subjects, but not in others. Finally, the student at the top, student 654. Maybe at the moment that young person might be under the radar because there are no grades there below sea. But actually compared to that young person that boys prior attainment, perhaps the seas are representing an underachievement. I'm now going to suggest to finish before Sue comes on stage that you might want to go further. And this is my desperate attempt to show you a bit of interactivity. I want to now find out whether it's the girls or the boys who are making that underachievement happen. So let's have a look at the girls and then let's have a look at the boys and let's flick back to the girls and flick back to the boys. And I think without me doing anything else, you can immediately see looking at the colours that actually to make a real difference in this made up school a need to get in amongst the boys or on EFSM and do a job of work with them that transforms that picture. I'm now going to pass over to my colleague Sue. Oh, good morning. OK, so John's taken you through the individual student level. So I'm just going to talk about that level above and the empowerment of your subject teachers or your pastoral leaders across the school and the job of work that they can do with this value added system. So what I've got here is I've got a banded viability table. So you can see that you've got the results of prior attainment from the tests and the number of young people that fall into those different categories. And two year trend. So this is a two exam point trend 2016-17 could equally work well as an in your monitoring trend. So you could have two or three or four different monitoring points that one. Let me just click back and see. Oh, we're out of sync. We're out of sync that one. It's just it's numbers. I don't think numbers are different in Welsh. Good, right. OK, so we've got banded viability on a chart there and there. And you can see that it's as I was saying, it's a two year exam trend. But actually from my point of view, this works really well in terms of your monitoring because you're really getting down to the individual sort of group level within the school, the young people at different levels. So you can you can see that by group of prior attainment, you're getting a progress measure on how well those young people are doing against the national progress that's being made across the country. So you can see that in the top two prior attainment bands, those young people there for two years running are actually, and I don't know if you can read that, but the top prior attainment bands, the bottom 10%. And the one below that's not doing that much better. Now, if I'm thinking back to last week and the message coming out from Kirsty Williams last week on the news was that there was some concern over progress of the most able, then that their school is tying right in with that. And the one thing that I just point out is that the young people who are sort of in the top half of that table are probably meeting your level two inclusive attainment scores, but the young people at the very top of that table who are within that level two inclusive are actually not getting the eight and eight stars that you'd want them to get in order to get on to those post 16 courses and forward from there. Okay, are we in sync? We're good. Okay, so then I'm going to talk about a totally different group. And this is a subject table. It's quite busy. So let me just dissect it for you a little bit again. It's a two year trend of exam results. The next slide is going to show you monitoring over time. Obviously this could build into a much larger trend. So, you know, four year trends of results. But at a subject level, this is pretty powerful information for your subject leads and your subject teachers as well. And I'll talk about teaching sets in just a moment. So what you've got there is you've got progress being made by individual subjects in your school against the national subject progress. So that's by individual subject. So the very top of that table there is art and design because it starts with an A. And you've got then the progress that your art department are making versus the progress that the art departments across Wales are making. So you're able to make a judgment call on how well your art department are pushing students from that base, from that prior attainment forward. So just to pick out, you know, a few there that you're actually sort of looking at the history department. I'm going to just pick a few out. The history department are green green and they're green green because they've actually made progress in the top 10% of history departments across the country for the last two years. So that's something to celebrate. And John's going to come later on to how that might work in terms of a collaborative approach across a region and locally in terms of sharing that success. So the history department are doing a grand job there. You might be more concerned about if I take Welsh literature, which is down the bottom there. Last year they were in the bottom 25% of progress as they've got a purple splodge on the screen. Actually they've improved so they're moving up the table and they're now in the lower 60%. So things are getting better. But in terms of as John was saying, the immediacy of this on results day I think really helps the subject leader to capture that information, to be prepared to talk to you or your deputies or your assistant heads and actually start kind of looking at what's going on underneath this or how did we move from bottom 25% to bottom 40? What have we done better this year and how can we then build on that and do even better in the coming years? So it's quite powerful information you can see not only for you and your senior leadership team to have on results day but also for those subject leads as well to be looking at. So that's exactly the same type of, to the same slide, showing the same information but the real power of this and I've used it in school myself in my last role is the monitoring aspect of it which is allowing you right here right now based on the fact that we're not far from examination time to actually be looking crucially at those subjects over time within year data and I think there was a question from the floor earlier about lost and hidden cohorts. So this monitoring could potentially take place within any year group of the school. So let's say this is year 11 data and we've done a data drop September, a data drop December and we're looking at the trend over time. Now I'm just going to pick out a few things because what this table allows you to do is ask crucial questions and the first question I'm going to ask is of my biology department because in September they were predicting progress in the bottom 25% and suddenly by December it jumped to the top 10% more hour but you know you're going to be a little bit concerned about that and say really is that realistic and are you making accurate predictions? So I'm kind of tying into that quality assurance process and an increasing the level of questions that you can have on your subject leads in terms of the accuracy of predictions and how they're making those predictions. The history department if I just go back to them are predicting from memory 10% to top 5%. You're going to be less worried about that though because they've been performing in the top 10% for the last two years at least and therefore you're probably going to trust their predictions. You'll also have over time an idea of how those departments were predicting last year and therefore be able to make judgment calls almost preempting some of this and then set improvement priorities in how to support them. The last one to talk about there is science. Now there's a little bit of a science issue. The biology department are going sky high with their predictions but if you notice physics and further additional if we haven't labeled these absolutely accurately then forgive but you're probably going to want to have some support and challenge strategy because they may be predicting accurately but the progress isn't where you want it to be. So at that point you're going to want to do some intervention. So moving on to a subject page. So just chosen Welsh language and the subject page is giving you a little bit more information and this is the real empowering of your subject staff. I'm going to show you in a second a teaching set as well but this is the subject view. So the subject leader for Welsh language is going to look at that table. You can see that it's broken down by different groups. So at this point in time you have a gender filter and you also have your EFSM filter on there and you can see that there is quite a big discrepancy in this subject between boys and girls making progress. So the boys progress is very definitely purple and the girls is very definitely not and so you're obviously as a Welsh language subject leader going to be making some judgement calls on how you tackle that. The middle table on there is teaching sets. So you've got three teaching sets there who again there is a discrepancy between those teaching sets. You may be anticipating that because of how you put students into those teaching sets but again you may not. It may be a complete mixed ability across the three sets and therefore you're kind of going right, whoa, why is that teaching set not making the progress? You've then got the performance over time underneath that and the trend but crucially I think all of your students in that cohort or in that subject area are listed and let me talk about the interactivity just in a second when I get down to the teaching set. But those are there, that's what we're here for, right? Is those students there? So I can clearly see what their profile looks like. At the teaching set level and this is one of the Welsh language teaching sets. Again, if I'm their teacher I can look at whether there are any discrepancies between the progress of those two groups, of my set. The scatter graph at the bottom is showing the yellow line, the national average 50% line and the green line, the top 25% line and I think that scatter graph is for the whole of the Welsh language cohort, not just the 21 that are listed there. And you can clearly see students who are making excellent progress and then the whole bulk on the bottom left there who are not, bottom right, sorry left and right, not my strong point. Then you've got your students. So let me just talk for a little second about the interactivity which I can't demonstrate. But what your classroom teachers are going to be able to do is they're going to be able to say, I don't think that Samantha is making the progress that she should be making in my subject. And therefore if I can do some work with Samantha and move her on then if we can target her to move up a grade what effect will that have on the progress of the whole cohort or of the group? So you're starting with Samantha because that's really important and it's about her live chances but what you're able to do is you're able to get a model for how that impacts on progress across the teaching set, the subject and the school overall. John. Very quickly to finish off. There's an idea on the screen there. It's got nothing to do with league tables but all to do with empowerment. This would never happen straight away but through data sharing protocols it would be easily possible to identify best practice in every subject locally, regionally, even indeed nationally to empower self-improvement right across the system. The final slide back to the core purpose. This is nothing to do with accountability. It's all to do with school improvement. It's basically to enable you to answer Steve Munby's question how goes it with our children. Look at the young lady there. Look how happy she is. I don't know what grade she's looking at. It doesn't really matter, does it? She's looking at the grade she really wanted to get and how happy the teacher is and we're hoping that this model will enable each teacher in each of your schools to work towards ensuring all pupils in Wales have that equal opportunity to be her to reach their potential regardless of their background, ethnicity or gender. We're now going to hand over to you guys to discuss around your tables. We will field any questions if there are some. I'm sure there might be later on. But please have a buzzing conversation for the next 10 minutes perhaps because we're finishing at 12. And my final point is this. You know, you've heard a lot about big data but here's I think the small data that you can get in amongst in your school and really make a difference. Thank you.