If you’ve recently attended any subject leader training, looked at the Ofsted handbook, or talked to leaders within your own school, you may well have seen, heard or used the terms ‘intent’, ‘implement’ and ‘impact’.

This vocabulary arrived with us in around 2018, (it was used in Ofsted’s ‘An investigation into how to assess the quality of education through curriculum intent, implementation and impact’, published December 2018). There has been much written about it since then.

When discussing the quality of education, the intent (including the aims and the structure), the implementation (the enactment of the intent, what actually happens), and the impact (the resulting outcomes), should be viewed as a whole. These are part and parcel of how the quality of education is evaluated. They cannot really be separated out, as this could give an incomplete view of the quality of education.

As the saying goes; ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’. Our judgement about the quality of education should focus not only on the intended curriculum and its implementation, but also on (and possibly most importantly on) the impact it is having.

When we look for impact, we are, therefore, exploring the outcomes (in their many forms) from the implementation of our intended curriculum: What outcomes has the implementation of our intended curriculum led to? Many a curious leader will then naturally want to consider the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions: How has this impact come about? Why has this impact come about? The answers are often multi-layered, and this is where the interesting discussions, in turn, come about.

When we  say that the quality of education is effective, we are likely to be saying that the intended curriculum has been implemented effectively and that the outcomes (in their many forms) demonstrate this. Conversely, when the outcomes are not what we expected/hoped for, we might look to the intended curriculum and/or its implementation to explore and unpick this: Why are we not (yet) having the intended impact?

Let’s ask ourselves some questions:

• Why might we look for the impact of our curriculum? 
• How and where should we look for the impact of our curriculum? 
• What should we look for as the impact of our curriculum?

Why might we look for the impact of our curriculum? 

As school leaders, we want to be sure that we are providing pupils with the best possible education experiences we can. That we are equipping pupils for the next phase of their education, developing their knowledge and skills so that they can take advantage of a range of opportunities.

To be sure that we are providing pupils with the best possible education, we need to check on the impact – the outcomes: What do pupils know and remember of the intended curriculum, as a result of its implementation?

For example, as a history subject leader I might have within my ‘intent’ that the pupils will develop the skills of ‘thinking like a historian’; handling evidence and constructing narratives about the past, building up a rich understanding of what life was like. 

However, if the implementation (teaching) misses the key point about handling evidence, then we are unlikely to have outcomes where pupils talk about how they have used evidence to build their understanding of what life was like. As a result, pupils are not making progress through the curriculum as leaders intend, and so the outcomes may not fully match the intent.

How and where should we look for the impact of our curriculum?  

There are many different ways to look for the impact; some subjects have data collected nationally, such as the Key Stage 2 SATs. These outcomes are one measure of impact. 

Pupils recorded learning, such as their work in books for example, may have captured the learning. Pupils may also demonstrate their learning in other ways, such as; taking part in discussions, making something, recording a podcast or making a poster. Often these show the learning at the time, within the lesson(s). 

However, what is recorded by a pupil and what they might (or might not) achieve in a summative test is likely to have its limitations, at least in terms of measuring impact. 

Talking to pupils, to discover whether they know more and remember more of the intended curriculum, might provide a more rounded profile of long-term impact. We might ask pupils, with examples of their work or books available, to talk us through their learning. Does the intended, taught vocabulary allow the pupils to express their learning clearly (for their age and stage of education)?  

It is likely that a combination of the above will give a more rounded indication of impact. We may need to triangulate; having the curriculum planning or mapping alongside the recorded learning, any appropriate data, and the pupil voice. Together, what do these indicate?

What should we look for as the impact of our curriculum?

This question in the first instance should take us back to our intent (including both the aims and the structure). What did we want pupils to know and remember, to say and be able to do, as a result of the curriculum they have moved through? 

The curriculum mapping and progression documents should set out what the school intends the pupils to know and be able to do. The ‘what’ we are looking for should therefore relate directly back to this learning and whether it has been secured in a way that means it has been retained and can be used in appropriate related contexts.

For this reason, having the curriculum mapping and/or progression documents in mind or to hand whilst looking at recorded outcomes and/or talking to pupils for example, will help us to explore direct correlations between the intended curriculum and the outcomes.    

For example, as art and design subject leader, I may have mapped within a drawing and sketching strand, for shading techniques to be developed over Year 2 and Year 3 (hatching, cross hatching, finger blending, stippling), with the introduction of perspective then in Year 4 (using shading techniques learned and rehearsed in Years 2 and 3 to create perspective, through the use of light and dark). 

Now, as I look for the impact, I will intentionally seek outcomes and evidence of impact which correlates back to the mapping. Do Year 2 and Year 3 pupils talk about the shading techniques they have learned about and rehearsed? Do Year 4 pupils talk about using these techniques to create perspective? Does their work in sketch books show this learning?  

Top tips for subject and curriculum leaders:

• It is helpful to see ‘intent’, ‘implement’ and ‘impact’ as part and parcel of the same bigger picture: we are exploring the outcomes from the implementation of our intended curriculum
• We may need more than one tool or activity to do this; a combination of ‘outcomes’ may best demonstrate the impact, possibly including data (if/where appropriate), recorded learning and other outcomes, and also talking to pupils.
• The identified important or fundamental learning should be threaded through the intent (in any mapping and progression documents), and the implementation. It is this ‘fundamental learning’ that should be looked for in the outcomes: Have pupils secured and retained it? Can they use it in an appropriate related context?
• Any subject leader monitoring and evaluation activities should be rooted in the above 3 points. Our monitoring and evaluation should bring us back to answering: What is the quality of education like?  

Getting to grips with ‘outcomes’ in subjects without published data can be a challenge. HFL education is committed to supporting schools to evaluate the quality of education across the curriculum. We would be pleased to help leaders explore the impact of the subject curriculum - to help clarify your thinking around outcomes in relation to the intended curriculum and its implementation. Please get in touch if we might be able to support you: kate.kellner-dilks@hfleducation.org

In our previous blog, we explored how to secure understanding of the part whole relationship using Cuisenaire Rods. We focused on fractions and equal parts of the whole.

In this blog, I will model how Cuisenare Rods can be used to solve questions from KS1 and KS2 SATs papers. Building using the manipulative is a powerful tool in supporting children to develop their reasoning skills.

The problem with problems

As a team of maths teaching and learning advisers, we know from working in classrooms with teachers and children that solving worded problems is regularly identified as a priority area to develop across schools.

As Charley McKay explores in the blog If we keep testing in Year 6, they’ll just get it... right?, according to Polya’s four-step model (1957), learners progress through four stages when faced with a problem:

Often, it is in the first two stages where children make errors and misunderstand what the problem is asking of them.

This is where building through problems using Cuisenaire Rods can expose the mathematical structure, leading to realisation of the calculations required.

When modelling, a visualiser is a great tool to use to allow children to see how to build through a problem piece by piece. Talking through the problem as you go will allow them to make connections and then explore similar problems with a similar inner monologue. This may include making changes as things ‘don’t work’ for a particular problem, e.g., a rod choice needs to change.

When building through a guided example, children may benefit from some sentence starters to support them in sharing their thoughts and structuring their ideas.

I can see…
I think that…
I know that…
I have noticed…
If… then…

Let’s look at some previous SATs questions. Each has a slightly different structure to build through.

Key Stage 1 SATs questions: let’s build them!

Key Stage 2 SATs questions: let’s build them!

Let’s jump now to some end of KS2 questions. You will notice quite a shift in complexity, and we must bear in mind that children will acquire much new knowledge and many new skills between these two points.

Once children gain familiarity with the relative sizes of Cuisenaire Rods, they will be able to apply them with confidence to more complex problems, bringing in other mathematical domains.

The suggested sentence starters above still apply.

And now let’s look at how a fractions of quantity question was represented in this year’s paper. You may agree with me that this presentation was perhaps not as tricky as some that we have seen in previous years, but the structure is still very much worth exploring. 

The connection between fractions and percentages can be revealed in a similar way.

In March of this year the Governance Handbook was consigned to history and replaced with two new guides, for maintained schools out came the Maintained schools governance guide and for the MAT sector the Academy trust governance guide. In the latter risk management and assurance is mentioned and trustees are referred to the Academy Trust Handbook which expands on the required policies, procedures and practice. For maintained schools’ section 2.5 clearly lays down the expectations of how the governing body will approach and manage risk management. So, for both sectors clear guidance that a risk register needs to be in place, aligned with the strategic priorities of the improvement or development plan, which must identify, manage and record risks.

Risk registers should include the main risks to the school or academies strategic aims, they shouldn’t be an endless list of all possible risks most of which the setting will have risk assessments in place for i.e school trips, sporting activities. The register should identify the ‘risk tolerance or appetite’, the degree of risk the board is willing to accept or tolerate in order to pursue its strategic aims. Furthermore the register should ideally contain the ICAEW four lines of defence to clearly identify the sources of assurance that will underpin the management of risk in the setting. The ESFA gives the following example for academies which could be adapted for maintained schools:

• 1st line of defence – management and staff who own and manage risk on a day-to-day basis.
• 2nd line of defence – the board who oversee the effectiveness of the risk management framework.
• 3rd line of defence – the internal scrutiny function who provide independent assurance on the overall effectiveness of risk management and controls.
• 4th line of defence – assurance from external independent bodies such as the external auditors and other external bodies.

Sitting behind the risk register you may wish to add a list of those risks that have been resolved recently, often referred to as ‘closed risks’, in order that they can be quickly added back should further mitigations be required or removed at a later date.

I think we are all used to doing a SWOT exercise to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats which still has a place, especially when discussing strategic priorities and planning. However, unless this is carried out on a regular basis then potential risks may be missed. A PESTLE analysis is a simple approach to considering external risk factors that may be emerging or are ‘on the horizon’ and may have an impact on future decision making and planning. It can be a useful exercise as well to support your SWOT analysis! PESTLE stands for political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental factors – here are some examples:

Political

Upcoming general election and potential changes to education policy and provision, will direction of travel towards academisation continue or evolve, wider geopolitical tensions and their impact on schools, role of Ofsted.

Economic

Falling school rolls and/or over provision of school places, impact of inflation/ high interest rates, future energy price uncertainty, changes to future contract renewals, school estate challenges, changes to local employment landscape

Social

Social mobility, new housing developments, long term impacts of cost of living challenges and pandemic, SEND provision, DfE guidance on gender questioning children, crime in local community, greater challenges with contextual safeguarding, teacher recruitment

Technological

Filtering and monitoring challenges, ever more sophisticated cyber security risks evolving, embracing the positive aspects of generative and non-generative AI, longer term impact of increasing use of smart phones and social media by increasingly younger age groups.

Legal

Evolution of HR landscape, risks of non-compliance with increasing volume of guidance and legislation, wraparound care provision compliance, teacher workload changes. 

Environmental

Reduction in outdoor space, new waste disposal/ recycling compliance, net zero plans and ability to meet timeline, travel to school challenges, EV points in school car parks, solar and wind generation opportunities.

This can all be captured in a single document sitting behind your risk register with the emerging risks captured on a risk radar. One example could be the classic circular radar, with the six PESTLE factors divided into segments, with three ‘RAG’ bands. Outer band ‘worth watching’, middle band ‘keep monitoring’ and central band ‘moving to live risk’ – plot each identified emerging risk within a segment on the band judged best fit for its risk ‘score’. As with any radar you would continue to scan the horizon on a regular basis, review the risk level for the emerging risks, and update this together with your risk register on a termly basis.

This whistle stop tour will hopefully have answered some questions and will enable you to either embed and/or evolve existing practice or begin the process of developing risk management in your setting. In conclusion, risk management is an essential component of ensuring the safety, security, and resilience of our schools in today's complex educational landscape. By adopting a proactive approach to risk identification, mitigation and review, schools can create safe and supportive environments where students can thrive academically, socially, and emotionally. As we navigate the challenges of tomorrow, let us remain focussed on the safeguarding and well-being of our school communities through effective risk management practices.