Skip to main content

Receiver-Focused Reporting


Open your personal email inbox. You don’t have the same emails as me. We’re individuals. Even if you’re on the same companies’ databases as me, in many cases, we’re not getting the same mail. The era of mass communication is fading fast and customer relationship management (CRM) professionals have become increasingly adept at fine tuning the communication they engage in with us.


Retailers have used your loyalty card data to analyse your typical basket. Fashion, leisure and car companies have tracked your browsing of their website to measure your engagement. Your fitness app is keeping tabs on what you’re up to, Facebook is noting what you’re Googling, even Teacher Tapp will chase you if you’ve gone AWOL for a while![i] You’ve been tracked, segmented and targeted with all manner of very specific messages from numerous different sources.


And the purpose of this data analysis and precisely targeted messaging? To attempt to affect your behaviour.


My favourite haunts are not dropping me a line about the number of loyalty points I’ve accumulated because they have a duty to report to me, they are trying to get me out of my house and back through their door. My exercise app is not reporting my weekly activity total because they have an obligation to do so, they are trying to give me some praise to keep me going and get me logging in again. And when I’ve not done any activity, of course they know, but they don’t tell me that at all, they try instead to lull me back with some friendly and gentle encouragement.


Communication here is about building a relationship. And relationship is about changing behaviour. Behaviour change makes things happen.


And when they’re considering the data in their possession and how to use this to communicate with me, these businesses are not just sending me a ‘cut and paste’ of whatever data they have about me. They’re not going to send me a message containing raw data that is going be badly received by me or will fail to promote actions consistent with their desires. They’re not deciding when to contact me based on what’s convenient for them, expect maybe to say that they’re also not going to notify 1000’s of customers of a problem at the same time, unless they’re properly prepared to field them calling up their call centre. They’re not going to waste time and money contacting me by email at all if I am not engaged with their website or if I don’t typically open their messages.


They are thinking deeply about me, about exactly what I message should hear, about when and whether I will listen, and about what I will do with what they tell me.


When done best, high quality CRM will ensure every communication is sophisticated, intentional, personalised, efficient, effective, and focused on building the relationship.


So what if we reframed our approach to home-school communication with this mindset? Reporting to parents[ii] is thus not seen as a burden, a statutory duty or a workload issue, but an opportunity for communication. An opportunity to build a relationship, to change behaviours and to make things happen.


What if we reinvented reporting? What if we starting thinking about fine tuning home-school communication based on meaningful data that precisely targets messages to promote desired behaviour change? What if we changed our thinking around reporting to ensure it is designed for relationship building? What if we moved beyond sender-focused considerations and instead designed our systems with a more sophisticated and considered receiver-focused approach?      


 Back to Reality


OK, so I shall assume you don’t currently have a large team of highly paid and well-resourced data science and CRM professionals at your disposal. I will also assume you don’t currently have highly complex data tracking, storage and analysis ability to enable you to monitor website interaction, email open rate and VLE engagement of students and parents. (Be fascinating if you did have all these things, but let’s stay rooted in some kind of reality!!).


What could be realistically be considered in rethinking reporting for the current era, within the obvious resource constraints that apply to most school environments? This blog takes inspiration from the world of CRM and explores five possible principles for home-school communication and reporting.   


The Data Fad Phase


In schools we have been awash with all manner of data, but maybe the real missed opportunity throughout our ‘data fad phase’ was failing to use data to inform and target communications effectively and failing to use it develop relationships. Maybe we have instead just churned out the raw, often numerical, data we’ve collected without deeply considering it from the receiver perspective. As a duty, a box tick. A broad brush, mass communication and, sometimes, brutal approach. The numbers have become the end game, instead of the tool. Some warped uses of data (particularly with regards to reporting progress) have also sprung up.  


We’ve no doubt told students (and their parents) who woefully underperformed at KS2 that they’re now ‘on track’ to meet the low GCSE expectations we’ve subsequently formed of them. We’ve invented seemingly scientific micro measures of a half-term of ‘progress’ and delivered home highly complex reports about these fallacies. We’ve sent parents ‘current attainment GCSE grades’ when students have barely even begun courses, or even whilst they’re still at Key Stage 3. Did we even need to send any of these numbers? Were they always helpful? Have they, at times, caused harm?


Principle One - One cheap and easy change to reporting is to instantly stop collecting and stop sending raw data that isn’t useful, isn’t reliable and/or doesn’t make sense.


Reporting implications when the curriculum is ‘the progression model’


But now the pendulum swings the other way, curriculum is now the much quoted ‘progression model’. And thus we’ve thrown out the progress data in some quarters and rapidly arrived at alternative conclusions as to other numbers (or something else) we need to collect and send home instead. Removal of progress data and progress reporting creates a vacuum, and we need to be careful to think deeply about what fills the void.


After the careful sequencing of knowledge and skills in my curriculum planning, I’ve subsequently grappled myself with the realisation that sending home a grade early in a course makes little sense (it likely never did) as I’ve not even attempted by this point to teach students to do anything in terms of many of the skills they’d need to demonstrate to achieve higher grades. All I will have had a proper opportunity to teach (and students to realistically learn) in early weeks and months is some conceptual knowledge and some low level application. But, honestly, if students know these things and can do the simple things I’m asking of them right now, then they are ‘on track’ in my intended curriculum journey. It’s quite difficult for me to accurately measure that, and even more difficult to clearly communicate that. Yet I do have a clear concept in my mind of what ‘better’ and ‘worse’ at this early stage looks like, and what these will look like later, and at the end.  


And thus (as impending Year 10 progress check points drew closer) I rather rapidly found myself caught up in an impossible quest to supply a perfect reporting replacement for these ‘fake’ early course report grades. Raw marks, percentages, ranks, tables, words and graphics have all undergone my scrutiny (and been the subject of debate from others in the field - thank you to all who have generously engaged in answering my questions with your views on these matters!). I will spare you the full analysis, but here are some headlines.


I like ranking due to the connection with the logic of comparative judgement and the ultimate likely ‘bell curving’ of final results, but there’s little good news in being told in such brutal terms that you’re at the bottom of the class, especially very early on in a course. Ranking creates a very explicit competition between students, rather than a competition against a standard or against a previous personal best, and this is something I have been trying to avoid in classroom (not least taking into account recommendations from Mark Roberts[iii] about avoiding competition to benefit teaching of boys in particular).  


I like raw marks, as they represent exactly what was and was not awarded, but these are really difficult to make sense of and compare across a range of 8-10 subjects with different assessment types. And we must consider that (as much as we might want parents to support improvements in everything, and care about our subject in particular), with limits to the time and resources available, parents are specifically looking to identify outlying and underperforming subjects where the student might need a particular push. Raw marks also become difficult to compare over time, especially in hierarchical subjects where students should score higher in earlier foundational content tests, but will struggle later as the bar is raised higher.


I tried tables displaying attempted/unattempted topics of a course, with raw mark or percentage completion statistic in each attempted topic cell. I tried graphical bar charts of notional ‘completion’ of various skills. Whilst doing a nice and simple job of visually conveying ideas of attainment and progress on my curriculum journey, I didn’t like either as a parent who did want to know if this was ‘good enough’ and how it compared to how everyone else was doing (the only way out of this was making them look like horribly complicated data dashboards).  


Percentages came out high for me (and seems to have garnered support from others out there who are doing great curriculum thinking). I like the potential for easier subject-to-subject comparison, although I felt they still needed some context. One idea popular in schools who have gone this route was to combine with cohort average, although this was neatly tainted by one person I spoke with who pointed out I would be telling almost half the cohort they’re below average, which (whilst unavoidably true!!) doesn’t sound great. The potential solutions (such as comparison to various quintiles or deciles etc.) only serve again to create rather complicated reports which would end up requiring a sound understanding of statistics to make any sense of at home!  


But only when I began to consider what receiving a percentage as a parent and student would mean from the perspective of different types of students and parents did my thinking begin to further unravel and then finally move forward to some kind of resolution. Viewing things from the receiver perspective as a broad concept is an approach inspired by blogs from Professor Becky Allen (linked below[iv]), where she details her thinking around the psychology of how what we tell students might affect their beliefs and actions. I will return to further consideration of this later!


Principle Two - Consider the likely reaction of and desired action from the receiver. How will reporting communication develop the right relationship with the student and parent in order to secure behaviours that promote high attainment?


Receiver-focused Reporting Part 1 – What do you want students and parents to think?


I will spare you the huge table of thinking that followed as I tried to put myself in the position of teacher, student and parent of different types of students who were given a percentage current attainment report (e.g. Maths 46%, Geography 68%, etc.). I considered the perspective of those from different levels of prior attainment, different levels of current attainment and different levels of ‘effort’ (the list of assumptions accompanying this table began to grow of course also – ‘assume prior attainment measure is reliable’, ‘assume current attainment measure is reliable’, ‘assume I could actually measure effort!’). Crudely simplistic ‘high/medium/low’ labels were used for prior attainment, current attainment and current effort. Essentially I ended up identifying a number of different student ‘segments’, to use a CRM term (e.g. ‘High Prior Attainment/High Effort/High Current Attainment’ was one segment, ‘High Prior Attainment/Medium Effort/Medium Current Attainment’ another etc.).


It quickly became clear that receiving a result of, say, ‘60%’ would mean different things for different students. For those with previously high attainment (e.g. notional 80%) this represented a drop in performance, and the picture (and required actions to redress this) depended heavily on how much effort the student had applied. High prior, low effort, lower attainment meant the student probably needed to pick up their effort (or at least try that!). High prior, high effort, lower attainment needed to be addressed by the teacher really though, if the student was trying hard as they could, something had potentially gone awry with something else that was out of their control! This felt like it needed acknowledgement in the communication, as part of building the relationship (i.e. ‘we can see you’re trying really hard and doing all we’re telling you to and all you can, we’re looking at this from our end too’).


For those with low prior attainment (e.g. 40%) and high effort, 60% represented a superb improvement in performance and would be potentially worthy of praise. For a middle prior attaining student (e.g. prior 60%), 60% represented a maintenance of performance. But what if their effort was really low? Is this OK? ‘You’ve always been a bit lazy and not fulfilling your full potential, you still are, but hey, just carry on!’ What if their effort was high though? Does everyone just settle with that, or should the teacher be evaluating whether there is still something that could be done to translate this high effort into high attainment?


A percentage without context could not convey the messages it needed to and was widely open to interpretation. It wasn’t just as simple in reality as ‘100% is perfect, 0% is nothing, and anything in between was somewhere more or less in between’, as my ‘curriculum as the progression model’ mindset would have me believe. And again, comparison of these percentages over time (with differing levels of assessment difficulty) became problematic.        


So, unless you know otherwise, I have resolved that there is no perfect and simple attainment measure that can be used to convey ‘all things to all men’. 


Receiver-focused Reporting Part 2 – What do you want students and parents to do?


What was apparent in my table of student segments though, was some elements of repetition. (This thankfully rendered my initial ‘identify desired action target for each segment cell’ approach redundant as I moved my attention to a more streamlined logical link from segment to desired action). There were 3 broad categories of ‘desired thinking and required action’ resulting from anyone’s prior attainment, current attainment and current effort combination.


-      Student needs to do more (try harder)

-      Student needs to keep doing what they are doing (in a broad sense, obviously they will need to keep doing new and more difficult things, but all indications thus far are that they should continue to follow instruction and engage in the manner with which they have done thus far as this has ‘worked’ )

-      Teacher needs to do something (student is trying as hard as they can, but things are not ‘working’).


Segmentation, with words


After some further wrangling, I scrapped the percentage figures all together and moved to words alone. These are easier to understand and easier to compare than any numbers. Implications around broad correlations to any grading can then be made loosely, or left to be implied.


I determined that using 3 category levels (high, low and med) was not satisfactory, so decided to split out to 4 (splitting med into med-high and med-low). This was beginning to look rather similar to the suggestion of grade quintiles from one generous contributor to my thinking here (they liked quintiles as they ‘hide the noise’ from percentages, which makes a lot of sense), although I am keen to remove the link between attainment and grades, plus this more generic approach can also be used at earlier stages in the education system too (promoting consistency across the system and better system-wide understanding). I could be easily persuaded to move to 5 categories instead of 4 (adding a ‘very high’), but I wouldn’t define these as quintiles or quartiles in my approach, as I will be selecting the category boundaries, and there will not necessarily be equal numbers of students in each category.


Subjectivity in determining attainment categories


Broadly, the current attainment categories would be determined something like this (some adjustments/flexibility would need to be made in context – for example if your cohort typically scored 70% 7-9 GCSE and 100% 4-9, then you would not bell curve across all grades as your likely profile will be different to the national picture. If you’re doing this for Year 9 French it will be different for Year 13 sociology). These are rough ideas, I know these don’t compare and have holes, keep reading.


High attainment – 70% plus in cohort, grade 7-9, high B-A*

Med-high attainment – 50-69% in cohort, grade 5-6, C to med B

Med-low attainment – 30-50% in cohort, grade 3-4, D/C

Low attainment – 0-29% in cohort, grade 1-2, grade E and below


A subjective judgement call does need to be made here at subject level of what counts as high/med-high/med-low/low attainment. People will potentially criticise the lack of consistency in the background here, but it must be born ultimately in mind that the sole purpose for the attainment word choice when collecting data for reporting is to facilitate segmentation and thus to determine the appropriately recommended action for targeted communication. So if the whole cohort is performing way below national average, then no-one should be marked as ‘high’, as we don’t want to ultimately communicate ‘all is fine’ for the top student, simply as they are better than the others around them (they could be supported to improve in order to attain highly when nationally compared). Furthermore, if the whole cohort has scored 80% plus on the assessment, we don’t necessarily want to suggest that everyone is ‘high’ attaining because we’ve got restrictive centralised percentage boundaries in place that don’t make sense on assessments that differ in difficulty (This matter is addressed later also).


I accept this is a somewhat messy position, and won’t receive support from everyone who wants technical/scientific perfection, but this is functionally pragmatic. The decision is based, as best as we can, on what we want to tell receivers in order to (hopefully) affect what they think and what they do in as useful a way as possible.   


I don’t like the predictive and goal/expectation setting idea of using targets based on prior attainment at individual level. These approaches essentially project forward in numerous unhelpful ways (as heavily covered elsewhere in many blogs on problems with flight paths and target grades in general) in order to enable current attainment/progress to be compared to what might be expected.


Providing just prior attainment itself though, described in words, without adding the projected element, enables comparison between what happened before and implies how current attainment (and thus progress and ‘acceptability’ of current attainment) might be usefully viewed, without laying in prediction, linear assumptions or expectation. The expectation for all can remain high (as the top grade), but the implied comparison for a student who has already history of very low prior attainment (especially one with high effort) can help ensure a careful and sensitive approach, without going to the other extreme and saying low prior/low current segments are ‘on track’ and thus ‘OK’ or even ‘good’. How exactly you categorise the prior attainment (and exactly which prior attainment measure/s you use) is likely to be subject to the same subjective judgement as described above for the categorisation of current attainment. It is important to recognise how the exact translation of this to word categories might end up affecting beliefs around how current attainment now compares to prior (more at the end on that).


Over time if would also be interesting to add ‘prior effort’. If, for example, a student didn’t try especially hard at KS2 SATS, and perform med-high, maybe if they tried for GCSE they could actually hit ‘high’. If a student is rated ‘very high’ for GCSE effort and yet scored ‘med-low’ GCSE attainment, this needs different action. Either there are issues with the curriculum (if full engagement with it doesn’t generate high attainment) or a recognition that this student might struggle with some aspects learning or memory         


Replacing ‘effort’ with ‘engagement'


I also decided that I couldn’t measure ‘effort’. This was far too vague and internal to the student. They were the only ones who could really assess that, but self-assessment of that was likely to be rather unreliable as the sole measure in the context of reporting to parents! The best proxy for effort though was task engagement. This is measurable (or at least conceptually so) and actionable. Measures would include class task completion, homework completion and engaged/on-task behaviour. Essentially if a student was doing everything asked of them, fully and properly, then engagement is high. If a student is missing out class tasks, purposely off-task, failing to complete all homework – they are not engaging fully with what the teacher is setting and requiring in order to follow the curriculum. Essentially, the purpose of this is to clarify the message for parents, answering the questions we often seek as parents from reports; 'are they doing ‘enough?’', 'could they do more?'. 


Very High effort – could not ask more. Full homework and classwork completion and engagement.

Med-high effort – most things done – could do a bit more.

Low effort – missing some homework, not doing class tasks as well as could.

Very low effort – no homework, no/very little classwork, disengaged.


The logic of 3 broad messages for action


Here is (after abandoning an attempt to map out lines with all the possible combination segment possibilities!) is what my thinking ended up looking like.



My logic goes as follows:


-      Regardless of prior attainment, or effort, if a student is high attaining, then essentially, everything is fine! They can just keep doing what they are doing in terms of engagement (in broad sense, see above on this and also below on next steps).     

-      Regardless of prior attainment, if a student wasn’t operating at the high engagement level, then the most obvious logical step for them was to engage fully.

-      Regardless of prior attainment, and of current attainment, if a student was at the high engagement level then nothing more can be asked of them! If they are judged to be doing everything asked of them in full, the only way any additional attainment gains can be achieved is if the teacher can provide different tasks to achieve this.


Obviously this is somewhat of a simplification, but additional nuance could be added when writing actual action statements for communication to ensure they read right for the High Prior/Low Engagement/Low Attainment segment compared the a High Prior/Med-High Engagement/Med-High Attainment segment. (You can add more detail with 5 categories instead of 4, as you generate more segments).


Further curriculum-related ‘next steps’ actions would also of course be needed to continue to propel progress, especially for those who need to ‘keep doing what they’re doing’. This shorthand that I have used of course really means, ‘keep doing what the teacher is telling you to do and what you’re doing in terms of your broad approach to and engagement with learning’, but what the student will actually need to do over the coming period will be different to what they did in the last as the journey will continue to move forward (e.g. the student might have smashed 100% in a knowledge assessment as they have followed every instructional step to perfection, but over the next sixth months they next need to develop analysis, so the next steps in learning will involve new sorts of instructional steps that they will need to continue to follow to perfection keep operating at 100%).  


What could reports look like?


Here is mock-up of what a report might look like for a student. (I’ve just quickly scrawled the actions, but you get the idea - you could easily give the categories more appealing titles of course also).



Prior attainment: Med-high

Task engagement: Low

Current attainment: Med-high

Action: Try to increase your engagement in set tasks as you might well be able to improve further. This means completing all homework, completing classwork to the best of your ability and trying your hardest to improve.

Next Steps: (Here would be something about the next topic coming up or next steps for specific geographic skills)



Prior attainment: Low

Task engagement: High

Current attainment: Low

Action: Continue to try hard in your work. Your teacher is going to work with your to try to help you improve your attainment further as we can see you are trying hard and we’re here to help you achieve more!

Next Steps: (Here would be something about the next topic coming up or next steps for specific related to speaking/listening skills etc)



Prior attainment: High

Task Engagement: Med-high

Current attainment: High

Action: Well done, your work so far has meant you have reached a high level. Keep up work in this subject, do pay attention to your task engagement though if your marks begin to slip as there is still some room for your to engage more fully in order to improve further.

Next Steps: (Here would be something about the next topic coming up or next steps for maths practice)



Best of a Bad Job


This is not still perfect.


The primary issue with assessing and reporting on a carefully sequenced hierarchical curriculum is that student attainment could potentially ‘drop’. Many students should be able to achieve high scores on an early assessment (e.g. early in a GCSE course when assessment is simply on basic and foundational knowledge which all students should be able to grasp) but as the content becomes more challenging, and more challenging demands are made in terms of skills, later assessments will be more difficult. In an ideal world, all students would make ‘optimum’ progress and continue to achieve ‘full learning’ and high scores on these more difficult things. Reality and experience does seem to indicate though that having every student continue to be able to do everything to perfection might not be realistic. And therefore, the attainment results of a student who performs well early on in terms of knowledge but less well in terms of analysis/evaluation/application later on will appear to fall in attainment over the course. This drop doesn’t look or feel good (particularly because it runs so contrary to our existing notions of ‘progress’ and how we attempt to track, communicate and affect it).


Potential solutions to this issue:


-      Seriously intense effort made with students and parents to communicate the nature of the curriculum so that decreasing attainment is not always necessarily seen as poor progress as such, but more as the bar continually being raised higher and higher. This is a large undertaking and requires sound curriculum understanding from all parties. This is not helped by the fact that not all subjects are hierarchical, and thus the journey is not going to be the same across the board. Expecting all students and parents to appreciate the particular ‘shape’ of every curricular journey is quite an ask. We’re not necessarily even there as staff in this respect, as we try to understand subject domains outside our own, and well as just about getting to grips with considering our own in theoretical terms. This could be disguised by capping top end attainment for early assessments at, say, med-low (as the assessment was of simple content), but they your 'high prior' parents and students will be seeking what has gone wrong, and the answer will be 'nothing'. (This type of cap would not work with my receiver-focused logic outlined above either, just as a side point).


-      Regarding this drop exactly and deliberately as ‘inadequate progress’ and setting the expectation that the teaching, learning and curriculum will enable students who are applying maximum effort to continue to attain at a high level throughout and to the end. Truly embracing high expectations for all with no allowance of the notion that some may ‘not be able’ to achieve the highest attainment. This is the definition of setting the bar high for all. It is an excellent ideal. It is poorly aligned with our bell curved final national outcomes though which makes it a very tough conceptual sell as students and parents know that not everyone can get the top grade in the end.


-      Bell curve all data to reduce chances of this ‘drop’. This does assume that the ‘top knowledge achievers’ go on to become the ‘top analysers’ though, and the ‘lower knowledge achievers’ will fail to analyse, which is not always the case – slightly lower effort but high prior and med-high current attainers may be able to maintain med-high performance compared to high effort, low prior, high current attainers).  

-      Delay all attainment reporting until much later in the course. This would remove the appearance of a drop. This could be done by simply not reporting to parents as regularly in such ways, or by removing the attainment data from the report, and simply reporting engagement and action required. This approach has the most merit in my opinion. Reporting is therefore ‘action focused’ during early phases (i.e. mid-year reporting). Only when meaningful summative data has been collected should attainment be reported. (Oddly, this then ends up potentially facilitating reporting with grades if you still really want to do that. If you’ve reached a point where sufficiently challenging content has been covered to enable a consistent and trackable assessment that won’t drop, you have also likely reached a point where you can bell curve and generate something approaching grades (or least broadly so anyway if you have a large cohort). Maybe grade quartiles or quintiles would be a good move at this point potentially, as the aforementioned person I spoken to on this had indeed proposed.)   


Final Proposal for Reports


Mid-Year Report




Engagement Level: Med-low


Action: Increase your engagement in set tasks and you are likely to be able to improve further. This means completing all homework, completing classwork to the best of your ability and trying your hardest to improve.


Next Steps for the Coming Months: Complete all weekly retrieval practice tasks set on all topics in the first unit in full. Ensure you complete all Google homework quizzes set in full.




Engagement Level: High


Action: Well done – your teacher is really pleased with your full engagement with all homework and class tasks. Continue to follow their instruction and you will be highly likely to achieve a high attainment mark as the end of the year. Talk to your teacher if you feel you could, or would like to, be doing more towards the subject so they can advise you.


Next Steps: (Something specific relating to French over the coming months)


Year-End Report


And then at the summative, end of year stage, the reports would also contain prior and current attainment level for comparison (as shown in my mock ups above).


Principle Three – Focus reporting on using data to identify student ‘segments’ and communicating carefully crafted and precisely targeted actions for different segments relating to behaviours that can be changed, noting how and by whom. Only communicate numerical attainment data if it makes sense to do so. 



Receiver-focused Reporting Part 3 – How and when you communicate with parents?


If schools are sending reports home by email (or on paper) at the end of days and/or the ends of weeks and/or the ends of terms, this does not facilitate easy reaction, action and contact from student and parent. Parents may want to discuss reports with teachers and, speaking as a parent, it is not always helpful to receive school information immediately prior to a holiday as I can do little about it when my child is winding down for a break! The report is forgotten and the new term/year begins with little change.


Schools could more carefully consider when would be a good time to receive information as a parent and as a student with regards to when they would be most motivated and able to take action. Scheduling parents evenings specifically to provide the opportunity for conversations about written reports can help, as can scheduling of class time to discuss data and actions with students. Providing the written report at the parents evening might also be an option if parents are not engaged with email or postal communication.


It would be interesting to examine the impact of sending mid-year reports home at the beginnings of weeks/terms with regards to attention paid to them and the take up of new actions as a result of them.  


Schools should also evaluate their approach to reporting and to other personalised non-report communications. Are there any communications outside the normal reporting framework? If so, are these:


-      Effective? Are they getting through? What is the ‘open rate’ on emails in a sense? Is there any response or action following contact with home? Does it change anything? If communications are not getting through or having any effect, then these need to be changed to avoid wasting staff time and to ensure actions happen!  

-      Motivating? Are communications focused on things that can be changed and actions required to secure change?

-      Actionable? Do parents and students know how to carry out suggested actions? Do they have the resources required?  


Principle Four – Consider the receiver with regards to time and manner of report communication. Analyse communications for effectiveness and make changes if communication is not affecting behaviours and making things happen.


Schools could consider heading off some later issues of underperformance by early identification of engagement issues. In the same way as my bank contacted me about impending risk of entering my overdraft due to low funds and an upcoming scheduled payment (prompting a rapid transfer of some cash from my savings to resolve the issue before it even became an issue) schools could pick up quicker on early signs of low engagement and act fast to build relationships that can foster action to increase engagement before the impact is seen on attainment.


These messages should be considered carefully. In the same way as my exercise app prompts and cajoles me gently back into the fold, we need to mindful of the motivational impact of our communications at this stage. What might be good and worth reporting on the positive side (100 achievement points!), might be less good on the negative side (100 behaviour points!) and maybe a non-numerical communication of a more positive/inspiring tone needs to be chosen in some situations.


Principle Five – Different behaviours warrant different types of communication. Design bespoke communications and be prepared to communicate at unscheduled times to affect and encourage desired behaviour.    


Further cans of worms


As with many other aspects of education, the answers here may not always be black and white, be clear cut, or even exist, but we have to make some decisions on how to proceed in the end, and thus (in the absence of sufficient research or perfect solutions) it is important to consider the potential implications of our current actions and investigate novel ways in which we might be able to secure some low cost, marginal improvements.


I would strongly recommend that you also read blogs linked below by Professor Becky Allen and David Didau[v]. David explores issues around target grades and what the 'curriculum as the progression model' means with regards to assessment in more detail.


Becky explores further the impact of what we tell students with regards to their attainment (especially vs cohort) on their actions. She helpfully describes the ‘grading games’ we are trying to create and the likely actions that students will take on receiving positive or negative surprises (this appears to be, from I see from Twitter, to have been the subject of her researchEd Surrey talk also, which I am disappointed to have missed!). This provides a hefty challenge to the implication in my approach that simply telling students and parents that Jenny is ‘not trying hard enough’ and ‘is not yet achieving at the highest level’ will actually generate the ‘try harder’ behaviour we are hoping for. Jenny may well decide that she is doing fine where she is thank you very much and the effort required to increase attainment just isn’t worth it. She might even do LESS if her positive results show she has overdone it compared to her own goals!   


This is a significant problem. It’s not exactly easy to solve though, what should we do? Try to collect student thinking on their goals and expectation prior to reporting and then artificially adjust our reporting to manipulate their thinking?! Yikes! (No-one is suggesting that by the way!). Becky is also careful to point out not just the risks in sharing cohort-referenced data, but also the risks in NOT doing so (Freddy could happily press on, blindly unaware that he won’t be able to secure grades for college entry, unless something changes if we don’t ever tell him where he is at).


Unfortunately I do not dispute Becky’s points (!), I just don’t necessarily know what to do about them! I have made a judgement call here in this blog on the design of my preferred ‘game’, but I would certainly not suggest that it’s perfect. I do feel however that we are both very much aligned in the principle of deeply thinking about the receiver when designing assessments and reports though. So this must be where the furthering of thinking continues. How can we use what we know from our data to more effectively segment and communicate in a way to actually achieve the desired actions/behaviours we want to see?


The issue of risk of cohort-referencing (even if only implied by the high/med-high/med-low/low words, rather than being as blatant as rank) that Becky highlights is the biggest problem I have yet to identify in my own suggested year-end reporting approach. Although it is not a problem in the mid-year reporting I have suggested. Parents and students are not (in theory) party to the attainment data that determines the target action segment, so they cannot engage in altering behaviours based around the bell curve as they cannot see this data. However, students would end up making some level of assessment of this themselves (as they begin informally sharing raw assessment data amongst themselves). Parents may reject the entire proposed system here exactly because it shields information from them which they want to use. And, of course, we now face the other risks of the students not being aware of low attainment that does need action.


Overall, my conclusion is that I would stave off providing attainment ‘word’ data (and go with my mid-year action reports above) early on the in the year, especially in new courses. The risks of providing cohort-referencing here are greater, in my view, early on than they are later on. I would definitely consider personalised communication for those who need the negative surprise though – we can contact only certain segments remember. We don’t always need to contact them all. (See Principle Five) This would need careful implementation, but might provide a middle way to address this problem. I don’t think there is a way out of providing attainment ‘word’ data at the end of the year though, the risks and issues of not doing this are greater than doing so and we have to just accept that people will do what they will do with the surprise they receive.


One aspect you could tweak would be the categorisation of prior attainment into the four word categories (it would be technically possible try to try to create more negative surprises than a very simple cohort ranking would allow, as you control the boundaries and language), but this is ethically, motivationally and practically problematic.


You probably are thinking about other loose ends I’ve left hanging like, how do you know how much progress was made from the start of the course until the middle if you’ve not done a baseline assessment? How can we identify and support underperforming teachers in all this? What about the reliability and suitability of the assessments in the first place? Many further questions remain to be answered.


I am not yet sure I have settled upon a finalised position in my own thinking on this yet, and I write this blog simply to share some of my thinking and to encourage further thinking/research/idea sharing so we can reach and improve collective understanding of what best practice looks like with regards to reporting and home-school communication in general.


I do believe we can learn some lessons from the highly refined communications of CRM professionals, but we also need to carefully evaluate the transfer of concepts into our (quite different) domain and specific contexts. There is little research available in the area of reporting from what I can find, so we cannot just ‘turn to the evidence’ on this one for now. And I am not entirely sure that research will end up being especially conclusive anyway as there are so many variables involved here, and the impact of any measures used may end up only being very small anyway - it will be interesting to see what happens in this respect.  


I look forward with hope to the wiser, better read, more creative and more experienced amongst you applying yourselves also to this issue. To you continuing to refine and perfect some suitable solutions to ensure assessment and reporting support the great strides we make as a profession in teaching, learning and curriculum development.


We cannot overhaul some parts of the jigsaw whilst leaving other pieces untouched as the picture won’t look right anymore and all the pieces will no longer connect together properly. This is where I feel we are now in our journey, so I hope you will join me in attending further to these particular jigsaw pieces and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.       



[i] 1. Sorry Teacher Tapp, I haven’t always kept up!!

[ii] 2. I have used the term ‘parents’ here to reduce to cognitive load for the reader in a text-heavy piece. Of course, this also relates to carers and all others in a child’s home life who would receive their school report.  

[iii] 3. Mark Roberts - @mr_englishteach

[iv] 4. Professor Becky Allen – Blog posts on grading.


Popular posts from this blog

What is ChatGPT? And what do educators need to know about it?

After registering on the ChatGPT website you are taken to a browser page. You can type in any question you like, and you will be provided with an answer. That’s what ChatGPT offers. It is a ‘chatbot’ and it is currently operating in a free ‘research phrase’ to collect feedback from users.   Great, isn’t that what Google does? ChatGPT is not a search engine - it is text only and it won’t pull information from elsewhere on the internet. It will give you answers using only the large body of content which it has been fed, so it does not know ‘everything’ and cannot address questions about current or future events. It does converse in a more ‘human’ manner than Google though, it’s maybe best thought of as a quiet, somewhat bookish, Alexa.  Why should I care? Home Study The content provided by ChatGPT appears to be of a much higher quality and far more specific than students could typically obtain from the internet via search engines. Users can obtain everything from compositio

Revealing the expert schema: Is your curriculum boring?

If I showed you a picture of how I think about a topic I teach it would be orderly and organised. It would probably also appear overwhelming and complicated if you were not an expert in this domain. (If you’re interested you can see the most epic of these, my ‘ macro map ’).   If I was going to teach you about this topic, I would gradually reveal elements of the picture to you, until you could see and appreciate the entirety of the big picture that I can see. I am trying to get you to a point where you can think independently like an expert. You will have the network that I have, so you can make the links I can make too, and then you’ll likely even make some I would miss.  This is frequently how I go about teaching my students. I will reveal, often graphically, very small and carefully sequenced pieces of my thinking, very gradually and over time, before eventually revealing the entire picture. The steps are small and the journey is leisurely, but long. You will get there, assuming you

Subject Symmetry

Some subjects appear to be awash with books on how to teach them and writing on what constitutes a ‘good’ curriculum in terms of that subject. Wise subject leaders who are engaged in curriculum design would of course do well to read such material to help aid their thinking, as would senior leaders who are responsible for quality assurance.   But what if little or nothing appears to have been written about the teaching of or curriculum thinking in relation to a particular subject? Where does a subject leader go for inspiration? How do they know if their curriculum is any ‘good’ or how it could be improved? How might senior leaders attempt to quality assure that curriculum?  The answer is that the curriculum thinking must be done from scratch. Before any work can be started the parties involved need first to educate themselves in the underlying principles and concepts of curriculum theory. These generic principles then need to be tentatively applied to the subject. There is no other w