Worle Village Primary 2013 -2014 Maths Team Year Review.
-
Upload
frank-wood -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Worle Village Primary 2013 -2014 Maths Team Year Review.
Worle Village Primary
2013 -2014
Maths Team Year Review
Feedback quotes
Clear inform
ative
presentatio
n – thank
you.
Now know the
progression with
manipulatives
Really helped my CPD - thanks
Feel more co
nfident in
what I do now
More information for
lower school needed
Collaborative learning sessions
Planning sessions
Maths obs
Book trawls
Pupil conferences
So what got the maths to good in HMI eyes
Up to date knowledge of current trends in subject
Good knowledge of recent Ofsted publications
Excellent subject knowledge
Fire and enthusiasm of children
Good to outstanding quality first teaching
Tracking of fluency
Children tracking progress in lessons.
A subject leader who is a true FLIRT!
StrengthsIncreased positive attitude to Maths by children and staff
Increased quality first teaching
Movement towards conceptual rather than procedural
Better planning, marking and feedback
More personalised teaching to deepen knowledge
Strategic interventions.
DevelopmentsGreater use of Numicon in classrooms
Reasoning skills and greater conceptual understanding
Problem solving
Planning for new curriculum
Training implicationsNumicon - ? In house/train to train/outside agency
Singapore bar model – in house
LSA training and subject knowledge
Continued professional development of teaching staff
DATA
RAPS KS
Progress
WAPS KS Progress
MAPS KS Progress
1 6.74 na 5.33 na 6.3 na
2 5.3 10(8APS)
4.5 8.19 5.4 9.72
3 3.6 na 3.6 na 3.25 na
4 3.33 7.6 3.4 7.83 3.13 7.19
5 3.1 10.65 9.74 (T5)
8.25 (T5)
Consistent progress across Yrs 3 & 4 (about 3.5)
Mathematics
Levels Below L2c
L2c+ L2b+NA 76%
L2a+NA 49%
L3+ NA 22%
Attainment 6% 94% 73% 61% 39%
Target N/A 97% 97% 49% 34%
In mathematics attainment at the higher levels of 2a and 3 is above the targets and the national averages for 2013. Attainment at L2b+ is below the school's targets and the 2013 national average, reflecting the makeup of the cohort. (The 6% below 2c represents 2 children, both identified as SEN, interventions in place and will be closely monitored – as will be the 2c children who nationally struggle to achieve level 4 at year 6.) •APS 17.06 Last year 16.2 NA 16.1 (sig+?)