Partnership Moderation Project SCHOOL OF EDUCATION Sue Bamford Primary Partnership Leader

Context Sheffield Hallam University is in Partnership with over 300 schools School Based Tutors / Mentors have responsibility for assessing trainees against the Standards Quality is assured though a moderation process. Within any large Partnership, there are important issues of consistency and quality

SHU Moderation Visits A University Based Tutor (Moderator) visits school during the second half of the block placement Moderator and Mentor jointly observe the trainee teaching A discussion of the total evidence base takes place in order to make an accurate assessment of the trainees achievement Short private meeting with the trainee A Moderation Report Form is completed and copies made available to the Mentor, school and Partnership Team These play a vital role in the moderation process and in the continuing professional development of School Based Tutors & Mentors

Aims of the Project A greater understanding of the criteria by which mentors are making judgements as to the quality and achievement of the trainees against the Standards in Qualifying to Teach. Identification of possible reasons for inconsistent judgements Production of further guidance materials for use within the Partnership and beyond based on the findings of the Project

Aims of the Project continued A broadening of Mentors understanding of the issues arising in moderation Experienced Mentors to develop the skills necessary to become effective Moderators Strengthening of existing partnerships with schools and individual Mentors

Participants in the Project 10 experienced Primary Mentors who had already gained Accredited Mentor status 10 University based Moderators 40 Mentors – chosen from those receiving moderation visits

Outline of the Project Planning meetings Meeting of SHU Project Moderators 10 experienced Mentors invited to join the project Each Mentor (trainee Moderator) was paired with a SHU Moderator

Outline of the Project continued Each pair undertook 2 joint moderation visits for PG final placements Trainee Moderators then did 2 individual moderation visits for BA Yr1 block placements Review meeting – 10 SHU Moderators + 10 trainee moderators

Joint Moderation Visits Joint observation of trainee teaching Mentor + SHU Moderator + Trainee Moderator Discussion about observed teaching Inspection of available evidence Written feedback of previous observations Teaching Placement File – planning, evaluations, MARRA etc. Student Profile – progress against Standards Discussion and agreement about trainees achievement based on all the available evidence Discussion about how grading decisions are usually made by Mentor Short meeting with student Moderation Report completed

Review Meeting Interesting and eye-opening issues The purposes of moderation Features of effectiveness The procedures of moderation Problems faced by moderators The underlying issues Review of procedures

Review Meeting continued How decisions are made on final grades The evidence base Pen portraits of the standards Effective ways of providing mentors with information

Initial Findings Each experienced Mentor approached to be a trainee Moderator was very enthusiastic about the project and keen to be involved Our trainee Moderators have a wealth of experience from which to draw when in discussions with other Mentors Most visited Mentors were happy to be part of the study and co-operated fully in discussions

Initial Findings continued Students didnt seem to be adversely affected from being observed by 3 people at the same time In most moderation visits there is agreement about grading of the trainees achievement Mentors arrive at their decisions in different ways, even when there is agreement on grades

Ways in which decisions are made Based on record of achievement against individual statements in Student Profile – based on daily reflections of students and review meetings Holistic judgement for each Standard, often checked by reference to review of each individual statement at review meeting All evidence taken into account and discussed with other staff Gut feeling – this student is a 2! (No reference to Standards except to write Summative Report)

Ways in which decisions are made continued Mentor unduly influenced by very forceful trainee or because of good relationship with student The need to show that student has improved from last placement so a higher grade given without due reference to the Standards Poor practitioner may grade against own performance – trainee receives inappropriate high grades Students not given a 1 because the Mentor doesnt give 1s for a first placement Mentor doesnt give a 1 because experienced teachers dont get 1s from OFSTED