Current Practices within Neath Port Talbot Partner Groups

• It is recognised that all partner groups have established very good pastoral links that impact positively on Year 7 pupils as they transfer from primary to secondary, these include a range of activities including a week's residence at the Urdd Centre in Llangrannog, an intensive programme of weekly after school activities during the Autumn and Spring terms and a range of visits for Year 6 and in some instances Year 5 pupils and by secondary school teachers. All partner groups have established early meetings to talk to the parents of Year 6 and often Year 5 pupils. All these arrangements have a beneficial effect on calming any pre-transfer anxieties felt by Year 6 pupils. They are very well organised and also ensure that clear expectations are established at the earliest point of contact between the pupils and their new teachers.
• Some secondary schools concede that the Year 7 pupils leave an environment where they are seen as leaders and very often have explicit and well-developed roles and responsibilities to start again in an environment where those roles and responsibilities are far less defined and more often than not totally relinquished.
• Secondary schools use planners to ensure that pupils become more independent and better prepared for life in the secondary school. Children are expected to take responsibility for organising their time, resources and personal belongings. It may be useful if Yr.6 pupils are given Pupil Planners/diaries that are similar to those used in secondary school.
• The data stream between the primary and secondary sectors is well established and in general terms results in effective sharing of information. In almost all instances, primary partners provide:
  • SATs results (usually raw scores in all subjects) and teacher assessments
  • NFER data from the reading and mathematics tests
  • IEP documentation where applicable
• It was felt however that the efficiency of the data transfer could be improved by addressing the following issues:
  • a common electronic format for data transfer
  • the timescale for data transfers – ideally secondary schools would like all data to be provided by the end of June to ensure that the information is disseminated effectively to those who need to know or used for setting purposes
  • two partner groups only transfer SATs level results as opposed to exact scores. Many transfer composite scores and not a breakdown of scores in the component tests, i.e spelling, reading, writing, and handwriting in English.
  • teacher assessments need to be transferred.
  • one secondary school stated that some data had not arrived until late September and that pupils' IEPs were not transferred at all.
• All partner groups have also established agreed formats for the sharing of information regarding personal details for pupils including their social / cultural development, attendance details, behaviour issues etc.
• In one partner group the secondary school places a significant bias on the Year 6 teacher assessments when they set in Year 7. Secondary schools expressed a greater trust in primary teacher assessments than they did of SATs scores.
• At least one secondary school places the Y7 pupils in rank order based on their raw scores in the SATs.
• It is not always clear how this information is disseminated to the teachers of Year 7 – if at all. All secondary schools need to establish clear lines of communication to ensure that both numerical and 'soft' data is shared effectively and in good time so it can impact positively on the pupils' classroom experiences in the first week of Year 7 and their subsequent learning.
• While we have some sympathy for the view expressed by many secondary headteachers that SATs results gave an inflated or unrepresentative picture of Yr 6 pupils' attainment, it is too simple an equation to hold this responsible for the KS3 dip. These views do little to help the effective use of data as pupils transfer into their Y7 classes.
• Year 7 teachers make insufficient use of the diagnostic data generated by the NFER Mathematics test in Y6.
• Some primary schools use CAT tests in Year 5 and this data is also transferred when the pupils leave for their secondary schools. There is one cluster group within the authority who administer CAT tests at KS2 (Y5). The results are used effectively to provide for pupils' needs on entry into the secondary school and also during their final year of the primary school.
• In all partner groups the secondary schools find the 'intelligence gathering' meetings with their primary colleagues of immense value and often influence class settings.
• There is a variety of practice regarding the transfer of examples of pupils' work. Some secondaries feel that they have defined clearly what they think is desirable and their primary colleagues have responded appropriately, some feel that more discussion is needed to ensure that a lot of unwanted information is not passed on. In one instance it was felt that primaries tended to send too much pupils' work and that most of it is discarded without being looked at. In another instance ROPA files including examples of the pupils' work on admission to the primary school was transferred. Again it was felt that much of this information was irrelevant.
• An opinion was expressed by a number of secondary schools that the breadth of the work transferred should not exceed more than one recent example of the pupils' coursework in English, science and the humanities.
• Some partner groups have established bridging units in specific subject areas – mostly in the core subjects and / or Welsh 2nd Language. It is felt that these units are generally useful, though question marks have been raised over the quality of the documents produced in some cases and the appropriateness of some of the tasks. Also, we must bear in mind that Year 6 pupils have gorged quite extensively on a diet of English and Maths during their first two terms and to expect them to indulge again in the same sort of menu can very often result in negative responses. Undoubtedly if partner schools are to further explore and develop the use of bridging units then some honest, open and frank views need to be exchanged.
• In a minority of instances members of staff from the secondary schools are released to deliver or support the facilitation of the continuity units.
• One partner group are looking to develop a more thematic approach to bridging units that would seek to accentuate the pupils' ability in applying the key skills of literacy, numeracy and ICT.
• There are issues surrounding the management of continuity units within those primary classes who feed more than one secondary school. Obviously, these very same issues cause similar difficulties when pupils from different catchment areas transfer to a secondary school.
• It was conceded in at least one partner group that a lack of clear understanding of pupils' abilities on admission to Year 7 resulted in the abler pupils ('secure level 5') treading water during their first term in the secondary school. To this, we need to add that a recent study by Maurice Galton, John Gray and Jean Ruddock of Cambridge University found that pupils did not find Year 7 sufficiently challenging or different from Year 6, although this varied according to subject.
• The level of differentiation contained in bridging units was not apparent, or even that they were differentiated at all. For the units to be effective they need to contain activities that span the 3-5 NC level range. These units should not be used to provide post-SATs activities for Y6 pupils but to ensure that Y7 teachers have a subjective insight into individual pupil's abilities.
• In some partner groups the secondary school provides feedback to the relevant primaries on pupil progress in CAT and KS3 SAT tests and GCSE results. Most primary partners welcome this.
• In most, but not all, partner groups it was felt that the quality of trust between primary and secondary colleagues was very secure.
• A number of secondary headteachers felt that there was a 15 week lull in the intensity of pupils' teaching and learning experiences between the end of SATs and their beginning in Year 7 (though not, we would contend, necessarily in the quality). It was perceived that this very often had a detrimental effect on standards and contributed to the apparent Y6/Y7 dip. Again the recent study by Maurice Galton, John Gray and Jean Ruddock of Cambridge University found that “secondary teachers are now better informed about the key stage 2 programmes of study, but many still hold over-optimistic views of primary practice. The reality is that for many pupils, much of Year 6 in the run-up to the tests consists largely of revision with an emphasis on whole-class direct instruction.”
• In the majority of partner groups the standards of pupils' literacy on transfer is the major concern.
• Many secondary schools offer the use of human and physical resources to their primary partners, usually in specialist areas such as music, design technology or where the secondary school has recognised excellence or vastly superior resources such as physical education or information technology.
• All partner groups have established regular cluster meetings. These meetings take the following format:
  • Termly or half-termly headteacher meetings (in all groups)
  • Termly or twice yearly core subject leaders meetings (most groups)
  • Termly or twice yearly SENCO meetings (in all groups)

In many instances the headteacher expressed the view that it would be desirable if LEA representatives (PDO/CDO) could attend the headteacher meetings, and in one example the headteacher stated that the absence of an LEA representative had resulted in the loss of impetus in the groups activities. One secondary headteacher felt quite strongly that liaison in too many subject areas does not work as it places an inproportionate burden on the Year 6 teacher.

Continue: Current Practices within NPT Partner Groups