This paper discusses, in practical terms, how Local Educa
tion Authority research officers in Hammersmith and Ful
ham work with schools, including the support they provide
to help schools understand and use the range of data that
they have on their pupils' assessment and examination
results. The focus will be on the use of performance data
and value added models to assist school improvement and
work on target setting. The paper includes 'real' examples
of work with schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barber, M. (1996) The learning game arguments for an educational revolution. Victor Gollancz - UK.
2.
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box raising standards through classroom assessmentSchool of Education Kings College - London
3.
Elhot, K., Smees, R. and Thomas, S. (1998) Making the most of your data school self-evaluation using value added measures Improving Schools (pp. 59-67) Institute of Education - London
4.
Fitzgibbon, C. (1995) The Value Added Nataonal Project General Report School Curriculum and Assessment Authonty - London
5.
Hayes, S. , Clay, J. and Rutt, S. (1997) Examination results m Hammersmith and Fulham in 1997. Paper presented at the Education Committee of Hammersmith and Fulham LEA, November 1997
6.
Hargreaves, D.Hand Hopkins, D. (1991) The empowered school the management and practice of development planning. Cassell - UK
7.
Hedger, K. and Jesson, D. (1998). The numbers game Using assessment data m secondary schoolsShropshireLEA Advisory Service
8.
Hopkms, D. and Hams, A. (1998) Improving city schools The role of the LEA. Education Journal (pp 22-24) - UK
9.
Kendall, L. and Hewitt, D. (1998). Examination results m context A report on the analysis of the 1997 GCSE resultsNational Foundation for Educational Research - Slough.
10.
Lofton, G.G. , Ellet, C. , Hill, F. and Chauvm, S. (1998) Five Years after Implementation: The Role of the District in maintaining an Ongoing School Improvement Process. School Eflectiveness and School Improvement (pp. 58-69) - USA.
11.
Morns, A.B. (1998). Catholic schools; an analysis of OFSTED inspection reports, 1993-95. Educational Research (pp 181-190) - UK.
12.
Myers, K. (Ed.) (1996) School Improvement in Practice Schools Make a Difference ProjectThe Falmer Press - UK.
13.
Nuttall, D. (1990). Differences in examination performanceResearch and Statistics Branch ILEA (RS 1277/90) - London.
14.
Sammons, P., Hillman, J. and Mortimore, P. (1995) Key characteristics of effective schools A review of school effectiveness research for OFSTED
15.
International SchoolEffectiveness and Improvement Centre, Institute of Education, University of London.
16.
Sammons, P., Thomas, S. and Mortimore, P. (1997) Forging Links effective schools and effective departments . Paul Chapman Publishing- UK
17.
Teddlie, C. and Stnngfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference Lessons learned from a ten-year study of school effectsTeachers College Press - New York.
18.
Thomas, S. (1997) Value added approaches for school self-evaluation in the UKInternational School Effectiveness and Improvement Centre, Institute of Education, University of London.
19.
Tymms, P. (1995). The Value Added National Project School Curnculum and Assessment Authonty - London
