LJMU Initial Teacher Education Programme logo

Making Judgements on Progress and Attainment

NB. This information relates to Tracking a Trainees' Progress.

Each phase of training has a formal review of attainment. This is an opportunity to celebrate the strengths and detail the areas for development drawing upon all the evidence accrued during the placement.

The most effective reviews take place with the ITT Mentor consulting and negotiating the judgements with the trainee based on the evidence.

The Professional Mentor’s role is to ensure that the judgements and grades are internally moderated and that all trainees within that establishment are treated consistently and that the grading is secure.

What is the purpose of each Review Form?

Phase 1 Review Form asks school tutors to indicate whether the trainee is making expected progress and should continue into Phase 2. It focuses largely on professional expectations and acts as an early warning if there are concerns. For Salaried trainees, Phase 1 review forms will be graded against the Teachers’ Standards.

Phase 2 and Phase 3 Review Forms require ITT mentors to grade the trainee on each of the 8 QTS standards at both the interim and final stage and to make comments on:

  • Key strengths and areas for development (linked to the Teachers’ Standards);
  • Personal and professional conduct;
  • Subject knowledge development;
  • Progress made against targets set.

The descriptors in the tracking document should provide a stimulus for discussion and decision making regarding progress and attainment. The ITT Mentor should grade each standard using criteria established in the LJMU ITT Tracking Document (TRACKER) to inform their decision. As evidence for the standards is collected, it is collated and summarised on the TRACKER.

Preparing fully for each Review Meeting

All review forms should be discussed. In order to facilitate discussion, trainees might be asked to complete a draft placement review form based on the evidence from the TRACKER document and previous target setting. However the final review form MUST be completed by the mentor.

ITT Mentors should consider an appropriate grade based on the evidence from weekly meeting reviews, lesson observations/analysis and other supporting evidence particularly the highlighted descriptors in the TRACKER.

Effective review meetings are normally a minimum of one hour in length in an appropriate room. It is important that the review meeting is seen as part of the evaluation and reflective process and will aim to identify strengths and future areas for development including those for the CEDP (Phase 3).

All grading made must be based on evidence and related to the achievement of the Teachers’ Standards at an appropriate level for QTS as described in the TRACKER.

It is anticipated that during Phase 3 the majority of trainees will be moving from good to outstanding by the end of the training.

What is the Final Phase 3 Review Meeting and how should it be conducted?

The Final Phase 3 review or Triangulation takes place with the Liaison Tutor providing support for the ITT Mentor and the trainee in moderating the final judgement.

This meeting normally takes 2 hours and validates the final grade awarded through a combination of scrutiny of evidence, the trainee’s articulation of their progress in response to questions and affirmation of the outcome by school-based staff.

What needs to be assessed?

The standards are presented as separate headings, numbered 1 to 8, each of which is accompanied by a number of bulleted sub-headings. A holistic judgement needs to be made about each standard and due consideration given to Part 2 of the standards.

The bulleted sub-headings should not be interpreted as separate standards in their own right, but should be used to determine areas where additional development might need to be observed, or to identify where a trainees is already demonstrating excellent practice in that standard. (Teachers’ Standards para 13 page 4). A best fit should determine the final outcome grade.

When grading Subject Knowledge for SECONDARY trainees, only the main subject should be considered, so for instance Science trainees’ Subject Knowledge should be evaluated taking only into account the Science specialism for which they have applied.

When grading Subject Knowledge for PRIMARY trainees previous placement experience should be taken into account and evidence from previous placements considered. This may be particularly important when considering Phonics.

Can Trainee Teachers be Outstanding?

The same Teachers’ Standards are now used to evaluate the performance of teachers in training and established staff. However, the judgements made about the quality of trainees teachers’ skills, knowledge, understanding and practice are expected to take account of the fact that they are undertaking a training programme and not yet fully qualified NQTs.

The Teachers’ Standards documentation produced by the DfE clearly states the following: “the standards will need to be applied as appropriate to the role and context within which a trainee or teacher is practising.  Providers of initial teacher training will assess trainees against the standards in a way that is consistent with what could reasonably expected of a trainee prior to the award of QTS.’ (para 6 page 3)

Given this ‘reasonable expectation’, the LJMU partnership’s aspiration is that all of our beginning teachers are at least good, taking into account the early stage of their professional career, with a significant number who are outstanding.

Those involved in making judgements of trainee attainment at the end of each Phase of Training are asked to consider:

  • whether the trainee has provided evidence to demonstrate that each of the Teachers’ Standards has been met (using the descriptors);
  • at what level they have met and evidenced the standards (using the descriptors in the TRACKER and highlighting them appropriately);
  • whether they have evidenced Part 2 of the standards;
  • a final overall grade for the trainee’s attainment. The final grade should reflect the criteria below.

Those making judgements need to check that the satisfactory criteria have been met before the good or outstanding grades can be allocated.

Grade Descriptor (taken from OFSTED framework for ITE – June 2014). Taking into account the ‘reasonable expectation prior to the award of QTS.’
Outstanding (Grade 1)
  • Trainees demonstrate excellent practice in the majority of the standards for teaching and all related to their personal and professional conduct.
  • Much of the quality of trainees’ teaching over time is outstanding and never less than consistently good.*
Good (Grade 2)
  • Trainees demonstrate excellent practice in some of the standards for teaching and all related to their personal and professional conduct.
  • Much of the quality of trainees’ teaching over time is good; some is outstanding. **
Requires Improvement (Grade 3)
  • The quality of trainees’ teaching over time requires improvement as it is not yet good.***
Inadequate (Grade 4)
  • Trainees awarded QTS fails to meet the minimum level of practice expected of teachers as defined in the Teachers’ Standards by the end of their training.
  • The quality of trainees’ teaching over time is weak such that it contributes to pupils/learners or groups of pupils/learners making inadequate progress.****
*Typically this trainee demonstrates the standards with the majority at grade 1 **Typically this trainee demonstrates the standards with the majority at grade 2 ***Typically this trainee demonstrates the standards with the majority at grade 3 and no standards at Grade 4 ****Any standard graded 4 by the end of the training indicates a fail
LJMU ITT Grade Descriptors
Assessing Performance