Getting the Most From the Student Mapping Tool

Whole school approach

The Student Mapping Tool was originally developed as a support for the Managed Individual Pathways (MIPs) coordinator in schools. However, schools that participated in the trial of the Tool found suggested that it would be most useful to all staff, including the MIPs coordinator, if a whole-school or whole-campus approach to the Tool was adopted.

The benefits of a whole-school approach are:

Quality data to support programs

In addition to identifying students at risk of early school leaving, the data displayed in the Tool can be used to support a range of programs.

• MIPs - the Managed Individual Pathways program requires schools to systematically identify and support students at risk of early school leaving. The requirements of schools participating in the MIPs program, and the connections to the School Accountability and Improvement Framework, are outlined in the Circular to schools titled S339-2006 Arrangements for 2007 Managed Individual Pathways (You will need you Edumail login details to access this document).
  Schools are not obliged to use the Student Mapping Tool to meet their MIPs accountability requirements.
  
  Schools may wish to continue with, or implement, other systematic approaches to the identification and support of students at risk of early school leaving. However, participants in the trial of the Tool noted that the Tool was a useful support to the work of the MIPs coordinator. The Tool can effectively underpin conversations about who is at risk and which support programs will best meet their needs. In addition, if destination data is entered onto CASES21 it will be displayed alongside risk factors in the Tool. This will allow analysis of which risk factors are most associated with early school leaving at your school. It will enable MIPs coordinators and school leaders to assess which cohorts of students are likely to need more encouragement to remain engaged at school. Support programs that do not have an impact on retention can be discontinued. MIPs coordinators can more easily assess which post-school destinations do not lead to positive outcomes after six months. Using ‘snapshots’ of the data over time, MIPs coordinators will be able to demonstrate to school leaders the impact their program is having on student destinations.
• It’s Not OK To Be Away - the Tool can show the real attendance rate of each student, and highlight any issues in the school’s collection and entry of attendance data. A series of ‘snapshots’ of data will show trends in attendance over time, and the impact of any attendance improvement strategies. By incorporating attendance data alongside other risk factors, and potentially mapping the connections between attendance and academic achievement, the Tool can encourage a greater commitment by all staff to attendance monitoring and improvement.
• Literacy and numeracy - the Tool provides ‘at a glance’ insights into the school’s overall achievements in literacy and numeracy. A series of time-lapse ‘snapshots’ of the data will demonstrate the impact of literacy improvement strategies. Similarly, following the progress of students in literacy support programs will show the degree to which these are proving effective. Aggregate results from the Tool can easily be compared with AIM results or other data. Analysis of data can highlight issues in the consistency of staff interpretation of assessment criteria.
• Student Wellbeing: Student wellbeing staff will be able to inform other key staff that a student is at risk, due to personal reasons or issues outside school, simply by providing the appointed data guardian at the school with a list of such students. These can be classified with a particular risk level, e.g. ‘SW’.
  
  This can alert other staff that they should consult with student wellbeing staff before engaging this student in other support programs. The success of student wellbeing programs can be assessed by using a series of time-lapse ‘snapshots’ of the data to identify which students go on to finish school, succeed academically, progress to positive post-school destinations, or even just cease to be classified as at a high risk level.
• Behaviour management - on the CASES21 system it is possible to register external suspensions (student is excluded from school for one or more days) and internal suspensions (student is asked to leave a classroom).
  
  The data displayed on the Tool will enable the school leadership to answer questions such as:
  - “Is there a concentration of internal or external suspensions in particular cohorts of students, e.g. year level, form group, etc?”
  - “Are teachers across the school applying internal suspensions consistently?”
  - “Are the school’s behaviour management strategies working to decrease suspensions over time?, and
  - “How many students who have ever been suspended go on to complete Year 12?”

Cross-school alignment of programs

The Tool provides a map of attendance, literacy, anti-social behaviours and destinations, along with other risk factors. The staff with responsibility for programs such as It’s Not OK To Be Away, literacy improvement, discipline and behaviour management, student wellbeing and MIPs/careers can gain a more holistic understanding of each student and their needs if the whole school is using the same Tool.

Staff with responsibility for behaviour management will be made aware of a difficult student’s level of literacy. Staff with literacy responsibility will be able to map the connections between poor attendance and low literacy. MIPs teachers will have an understanding of a student’s achievements in literacy and numeracy when discussing possible post-school pathways.

If all of these staff then contribute to developing a complete Tool, by providing the school’s appointed data guardian with information about which students are receiving literacy support, are being case managed by student wellbeing or MIPs staff, or are engaged in targeted support programs, then this information is effectively made available to all key staff.

The Tool can enable key staff to gain an up-to-date, holistic picture of student progress and to share information about how each student is being supported by different parts of the school. The 2006 Review of the MIPs Program identified the need for a team-based approach to supporting students at risk, and this was subsequently outlined in the MIPs Best Practice Framework (PDF - 23Kb).

Shared understanding of which students are at risk of early school leaving

In many schools, the staff with responsibility for student wellbeing and pastoral care will have a list of students who are at risk of early school leaving. The MIPs coordinator will have a separate, possibly different, list of students who are at risk of early school-leaving. Staff with responsibility for behaviour management, such as assistant principals and year level coordinators, will have their own list.

Not all of these lists will be written down.

In order for schools to successfully support all students at risk, key staff should reach agreement on which students need support and what kind of support they most need.

Having one agreed list of students at risk of early school leaving, and an agreed strategy of how best to support each student, also assists with transition when there is a turn-over of key staff.

Effective linking of students and support programs

The holistic view of the student’s exposure to risk factors can allow schools to provide the kind of support that will make the most difference first.

If a student has extremely poor literacy, case management by the MIPs coordinator is unlikely to significantly improve their experience of school. Similarly, if a student is facing serious drug and alcohol issues, literacy support is unlikely to succeed in improving their academic progress.

In some cases, the Tool will highlight the need for new support programs that address risk factors experienced by a number of students. Such data could add weight to funding submissions.

A whole-school approach to using the Tool will support discussions about appropriate and targeted support strategies.

Coordinated approach to supporting at-risk students

Some schools that participated in the trial gained interesting insights into their support programs.

One school found that some students were engaged in four or five different support programs at once, which could be rather overwhelming. Other students who needed support were not getting any, while some of the students engaged in support programs had not been identified as being at risk of early school leaving. By mapping the support programs in which each student is engaged, the school can better manage the support given to any one student or family.

Senior leadership

The appointed data guardian in a school should ideally be a member of the school leadership team if the Tool is to be used to greatest effect.

• Only a member of the school leadership team can ensure that the data in the Tool is used to inform medium and long-term strategic planning.
• Only a member of the leadership team has the authority to request data from all staff involved in brokering or delivering the school’s support programs.
• Only a member of the leadership team can decide who is authorised to view the data, and under what circumstances it can be shared with external agencies.

One MIPs coordinator who attempted to act as data guardian during the trial of the Tool noted that it was a valuable support to his own program, but that he was unsuccessful in obtaining data about support programs from other staff, and that he spent a disproportionate amount of time providing and analysing data for colleagues like the Attendance Officer.

He became a de facto ‘student manager’ simply because he was the gateway to the data. He strongly recommended that the data guardian should be a member of the senior leadership team.