Kingston University Ofsted Inspection Highlights?

Part 1 Caught a bit unawares – 2 nd week in April Standards 2, 5 and 6 – trainees’ impact on pupil progress for all learners and the evidence that they could show for it. Sharpen improvement planning with precise, measurable action points Strengthen self-evaluation Ensure all mentors have been mentor trained and are up to date with partnership priorities Accurate assessment of trainees against the Standards – disagreed with some of our judgements Timely placement of all trainees in schools that offer contrasting experiences

Ofsted action plan Linked it to our improvement plan and made them both measurable with times and who was responsible. % for increases in outcomes Links to SED with key actions our data was revealing e.g. what TS we needed to improve, outcomes for males. This was seen as a strength during the inspection

Standards 2, 5 and 6 – trainees’ impact on pupil progress What we did – lectures, return days, mid- placement targets end of placement targets, induction profiles, visits to NQTs chosen for inspection. What they said – trainees knew about assessment in theory but were not showing enough evidence in practice (three weeks in!) Trainees were not routinely assessing pupils to understand impact on pupil learning or meeting needs of wide enough range of pupils

Strengthen self-evaluation What we did- Took advice from a consultant who was very helpful in pulling apart our SED and the data SED they saw on first visit was not securely informed by data. Spent a lot of time analysing different groups, making comparisons, individual standards, School Direct etc. Clear links to Improvement Plan.

What they said- Some of our data did not match what they had from the NCTL and data which we had provided them from SITS! Lots of last minute gathering of data and we filled in the gaps. They were prepared to accept our story. Partly because most of data was secure and they could see that we had done a lot. They drilled down into the completion rates for (because they did not have accurate data for ). Look at the latest NCTL data sets and compare your figures to theirs. Make sure that any completers are accounted for in the year you decide to put them in. We could confidently say that the % of completers was higher than they had figures for on a student by student set of data.

Outcomes data What we said – all students who completed the course were above the minimum level – AML. Some had not reached ‘good’ by the end of the course but were AML. We produced case studies of these NQTs and they chose to see a sample and agreed with our decisions. Sample NQTs we had given grade 1 but they felt we were ‘too generous’ with some of our grading – a key reason for not being outstanding. Very interested in how we made a decision about grading our trainees

Mentoring We said – all our mentors are trained through our liaison tutor links We pointed to our mentor training programme They said – there was a correlation between trainees being over graded and those mentors not having had more formal mentor training. Issues around having all mentors having recent formal centre based training.

Placements made in a timely manner. They did not pursue this because our Exit survey data said that trainees were largely content. Value in having range of data sources. They made the point that some data points to confidence which does not necessarily show competence but in this case it was all about student perspective.

Issues emerging from inspection Pupil premium – expecting NQTs to articulate how their planning was informed by closing the gap. In hindsight would have made more of this in training and preparation visit for inspection. PE – NQTs said they were not sufficiently prepared. Lack of teaching on placements. We o have this as a task but NQTs clearly saying this was an issue.

British values – we say that we embed this in the training across subjects but said we could do more. Prevent – training in place or They seemed ok with the fact that we were taking steps. Tracking NQTs and RQTs and developing data on them. Impact of subject specialism and training for subject leadership not being tracked. Not tracking long term success of those trainees who take a break during their course and come back to have a successful conclusion.