This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in

September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

D&T DepSEF
GCSE Results
2014 2013 2012 2011
GRAPHICS Sch Nat Sch Nat Sch Nat Sch Nat
A* - C 67% 60% 46.7% 58.4% 64.7% 59% 78.6% 61.5%
A-A* 17% 18% 6.7% 17.1%


2014 2013 2012 2011
RM Sch Nat Sch Nat Sch Nat Sch Nat
A* - C 69% 56% 76.5% 55.2% 60% 57% 66.7% 61.5%
A-A* 8% 13% 17.6% 11.5% 20% 13% 25% 17.9%


2014 2013 2012 2011
CATERING Sch Nat Sch Nat Sch Nat Sch Nat
A* - C 33.3% 58.8%* 100% 61.7% 63.3% 59.9%
A-A* 11% 10.6%* 11.1% 12.2% 15.1% 11.9%

* 2014 Catering figures from WJEC to be verified. WJEC website did not give clear figures.
GCSE analysis (please make specific reference to Most Able/ Gender/PP/SEN/L-M-H
Attainers as well as specific teaching sets and any other comparisons or relevant
information)
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

GCSE GRAPHICS (PA)

An improvement in terms of overall percentage grade of 20% and 9% above National
Average but this is not an issue to celebrate considering last years abysmal results
and the target grade of these students. Reasons for their underperformance are
puzzling. Strategies put in place as a result of last year have had mixed success
despite the logic of doing them. Further improvements to the data tracking system
and increased frequency of monitoring still did not yield accurate final predictions.
The predictions were based primarily on the coursework element rather than the
exam part. Overall the accuracy of predictions for the coursework were very
accurate. The impact of the exam results skewed the overall percentage and
individual performance significantly.
The results need to be compared in two main parts.
Part 1 the coursework and Part 2 the written examination.
Part 1 - coursework.
I ran the same course as last year but started it earlier, had much more exemplar
material to refer too, had more equipment to enable students access to CNC facilities
and gave more input to each section of work in the form of checklists, one to one
mentoring and assessed feedback. Lunchtimes and after-school sessions continued
to be offered with limited take up from the majority, and during the Easter holidays I
opened up for a day to enable students to catch up and make progress - ie a full day
of D&T with me. The students that most needed the extra sessions and Easter day
did not use it and some did not attend any.
The grades recorded for the coursework were accurate and achieved 75% A*-C. The
moderator did not change any scores.
The coursework scores were:

This was much better and promising and despite constant pressure on some students
they were unable to get above a C. Letters home were sent when needed. Phone
calls to parents also when necessary. Interventions tried. Again, more interventions
like this than any previous year. Despite this some students such as Kieron Murray,
Macauley Murray, Lewis McLuckie, Tia Dalzell, Katie Ann Walley, Ben McNally, Gavin
Spedding failed to respond. Other students such as Harvey Robinson, Louis
Twentyman, James Porthouse, Ciaran Dickinson and Melissa Tyrer failed to take on
advice and ploughed their own furrow despite clear advice to modify their work.
Harvey Robinson failed to perform due to speed and content in his folder - any advice
given was ignored. Josh Blair also ignored repeated advice on how to develop his
work appropriately. Charlotte Williamson eventually came good but only after a lot of
pressure. Essentially, Im not sure what else I could have done apart from do the
work for them!
Part 2 Examination
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

Strategy this year was to allocate a single lesson purely to theory in preparation for
the exam. This ran from September through to leaving. A wide variety of techniques
were used including independent learning, on line tests, past papers, flubaroo,
Socrative, BBC Bitesize. This year again all students had revision guides and exam
question books, Literacy sheets and access to a specially created revision website.
Each lesson included numerous tests of knowledge. The results of these were
recorded and passed on to the students. Most tests were repeated to assess
progress of understanding. No year group has had more revision time allocated,
variety of materials and methods of delivery. Once the coursework had finished we
spent 6 plus weeks focussed solely on the examination. This involved past papers,
specially written questions based on the exam theme and a wide range of activities.
All areas of the Programme of Study were covered extensively. Following AQA exam
board on-line training I also added more focus on keywords, trigger words, extended
writing tasks, time exercises, and specific drawing skills. We spent a lot of time
practicing Section A questions as this is the highest scoring question. On the day of
the exam I held a final 2 hour revision session. Only 6 turned up. I had to chase up
other students who reluctantly attended and Macauley Murray refused to attend.
The actual exam was fair except one question (Q5) where it required knowledge of a
specific piece of equipment that most schools do not have. Our students did not
answer this one very well. Overall our students performed better than the National
Average in all but one question - as mentioned above.


Overall final scores was 56% for the exam compared to 53% Nationally.

Key issues/students
Leah Cumiskey - always wanted to fail to meet her targets. Her mother told me at
parents evening that the target was too high for Leah to achieve and that she
wouldnt support me in pushing her to achieve this target. Leah met her mothers low
expectations. D&T grade - Middle of grades achieved in comparison to all subjects.
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

Melissa Tyrer - never attended any after school sessions and very few lunchtime
sessions and then only for 10 minutes at a time. She would promise to attend but
never/rarely turned up. Letters home were not responded to by parents. D&T Grade
- Equal best grade in comparison to all subjects
Ben McNally - frequent absences - missed a lot of lessons. Again, letters home were
not responded to by parents. D&T grade - Middle of grades achieved in comparison to all
subjects.
Gavin Spedding - meeting with mother early in term raising concerns especially
about handwriting and deadlines. Mother agreed to support but subsequent in
conversations she asked me not to pressure him and let him focus on English and
Maths. D&T grade - Lowest grade in comparison to all subjects.
Lewis McLuckie - failed to make a final product. Never turned up to any sessions and
was frequently absent from last few weeks. Regular phone calls to mother had no
impact. He wasted his time. Very weak skills for subject even without his poor
attitude. Coursework scored D grade but his Exam was G grade. D&T grade - Middle
of grades achieved in comparison to all subjects.
Kieran Murray - Mother supportive to an extent but Kieron not motivated and
needed bullying to complete work. Exam was good - a grade B but coursework was a
C due to not completing work to enough detail. He restarted the project twice,
against advice and then became demoralised when others were further ahead than
he was.. D&T grade - Equal best grade in comparison to all subjects.
Macauley Murray - weak candidate and he never intended to do well. always
negative attitude. Mother inconsistent in support. Frequent phone calls, sometimes
she supported and others she did not. He failed to make a final product. None
attendance at any extra sessions and point blank refused to attend final revision
session. He told me to f off as he walked away from me when asked if he wanted
to come to final exam prep session. D&T grade - Equal best grade in comparison to all
subjects.
Charlotte Williamson - coursework grade B Exam grade E. Clearly no extra revision.
She was more interested in her Prom than her exams. Underperformed across al l
subjects. D&T grade - Middle of grades achieved in comparison to all subjects
Emily Graham - weak literacy reduced grade in exam - D&T grade - Equal best grade in
comparison to all subjects.
Aidan Gregory - weak literacy and presentation reduced exam score - D&T grade -
Middle of grades achieved in comparison to all subjects
Shaun Fitsimmons - weak literacy and very poor handwriting would have made his
exam paper illegible in places. He knew the content but in the exam it is clear the
examiner did not mark work he could not read. D&T grade - Middle of grades achieved
in comparison to all subjects
Harvey Robinson - so slow and un motivated. Despite reminders and pressure he
was incapable of working quickly. He ran out of time in coursework and exam.
Coursework grade C Exam grade F. He did not complete the last 3 exam paper
questions due to time management - he blew it. D&T grade - Equal best grade in
comparison to all subjects.
Charles Peat - Grade A coursework, C in the exam. He came out of the exam saying
he had blown it due to nerves. He was one of the strongest in theory but exam
pressure got to him. D&T grade - Equal best grade in comparison to all subjects.
John McKenzie - no coursework, poor attendance, non attendance at any extra
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

session. Failed to complete coursework and frequently absent. Results reflect his
attitude to school in general. No help given was accepted. D&T grade - Middle of
grades achieved in comparison to all subjects
Katie Ann Walley - she gave up. Folderwork initially promising but nothing from
December onwards. Father came in for meeting but his promises came to nothing.
Truancy for last 6 weeks missed all final exam prep lessons. D&T grade - Middle of
grades achieved in comparison to all subjects
Ciaran Dickinson - grade C coursework E in examination. Attitude throughout was
unusual - he resented help and made his own way. Clearly did not prepare for exam.
D&T grade - his lowest grade when compared to other subjects.
Katie Ivison - unusual, too heavily influenced by peers especially Charlotte
Williamson and Brandon Renney. An able student without confidence to follow her
own path. She would work only at pace of Charlotte and had no personal initiative
or drive. Coursework - C but did well in the exam Grade B. Coursework lacked depth
to designs and needed more development for higher grades. D&T grade - Middle of
grades achieved in comparison to all subjects
Josh Blair - ploughed his own path - reluctant to listen to advice and would do just
enough but never beyond the minimum. Coursework contained errors that he would
not modify and develop and this reduced his development score. This is a big
proportion of the final grade and so reduced final coursework grade down to C. His
exam knowledge was good and he scored a B in the exam. D&T grade - his lowest
grade when compared to other subjects.
James Porthouse - similar attitude to Josh and Ciaran. Work was OK but never
pushed himself beyond the basics. Limited development of work and low quality
final manufacture of work reduced coursework score to D. Exam score also D. D&T
grade - his lowest grade when compared to other subjects.

G&T Most Able
11 P 3 students all achieved 100% A*-C. Greg Beson and Greg Kerr achieved target grades of
B whilst Josh dropped to C. Greg Benson A in Exam and B in coursework. Gregg Kerr C in
exam and B in coursework.

11 R 2 students identified 100% A*-A 100% A*-C.

FSM
11 P 3 students. 66.7% A*-C. Sean one above FFT, Marcus = to FFT Macauley -1 below FFT
11R 1 student Katie Anne Walley - 0% A*-C -2 below FFT. U in exam, F in coursework

Pupil Premium
11P 7 students identified. 42.9% A*-C
Sean +1 above FFT
Marcus = to FFT
Aidan = to FFT
Lewis -2 below FFT
Kieran = to FFT
Macauley -1 below FFT
Louis = to FFT
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.


11 R 2 students John and Katie. 0% A*-C
Katie - 2 below FFT
John -1 below FFT

SEN
11 P 1 student Aidan - 0% A*-C but he scored equal to his FFT
11R 2 students identified 50% A*-C
Luke - achieved grade A +2 above FFT
John- achieved grade F - 1 below FFT

GENDER
Girls performed better overall at A*-A (30.7%) compared to boys at 8% A*-A and A*-C
Female (13) 84.6%
Male (23) 56.0%
11 P





A*-C
Female (4) 75.0%
Male (13) 61.5%
11 R
Female (9) 88.9%
Male (10) 50.0%

Written paper 56% A*-C


Coursework 75% A*-C

Overall 67% A*-C

Overall 11R faired better than 11P despite having their theory lesson on a Thursday and out
of the normal classroom. Attitude of 11 R was better with a better gender balance and group
dynamics.
Those students who underperformed had intervention strategies in place except for Melissa,
James, Ciaran and Josh. Their underperformance was unexpected in the case of Ciaran and
James but in line with their efforts. Harvey failed to respond to advice and guidance and
parental pressure. Mellissa - parental support not forthcoming and unwilling to work beyond
classroom.
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

External Isssues/factors:- much more increased pressure from other subjects to attend after
school sessions was evident to the extent that students often had to decide between subjects
and D&T was a poor relation compared to English, Maths, Science and RE. Also fatigue of
students was very evident - they seemed to be constantly under pressure. Some could not
cope and failed to achieve - eg Macauley, Lewis, James, Ciaran, Katie Anne, John etc.
Action Points: continue with exam lessons, maintain current format, increase levels of
intervention, increase frequency of assessment, implement Rubrics for assessment, continue
with online testing and use of Flubaroo and Socrative.
Action Points already implemented for Entry 2015 - creation of assessment Rubrics, creation
of new Graphics website - http://designmragraphicproductsgcse.weebly.com,

Resistant Materials Technology (TBB)
Resistant materials Exam review 2014
Target % A*-C = 84% (11/13 pupils). Actual %A*-C = 69% (9/13 pupils)
Overall Result
3 pupils did not meet their target grades
Lloyd Ditchburn Missed a significant number of lessons towards the end of the controlled
assessment (CA). Showed little motivation to complete CA and happy to accept low quality
outcome. Achieved very creditable B on written paper to offset poor CA.
Judd Walker near enough is good enough attitude to practical work and had to be bullied
into producing acceptable CA practical work. Most marks lost on the written paper. Achieved
E instead of target C.
Joe Stoddart No motivation to complete design element of CA. Very weak exam
performance due to lack of revision homework.
4 pupils, Taylor Bower, Kieran Doggart, Dan Monkhouse & Jack Palmer all exceeded their
target grades.
Kieran Doggart was particularly pleasing as his very positive attitude resulted in B compared
to target of D.
Jack Palmer produced a stunning piece of practical work that achieved maximum marks.

Written Paper. 11/13 achieved or bettered their target grade. Lack of engagement in
revision programme by the two who missed their target. 10/13 achieved A* -C
Controlled assessment 9/13 achieved or bettered their target grade. See comments above.
10/13 achieved A*-C

Gap Groups
Pupil Premium (3) - All pupil premium pupils achieved their target grades.
Most Able (1) Conor Galloway achieved target.
Higher Achievers (3) all met or exceeded their target grade.
Middle Achievers (8) 3 did not meet or exceed target grades.
Lower Achievers (2) all met or exceeded their target grades.
Gender there were no girls in this group.

Overview
A small group with a very wide ability range. Disappointing that a few missed their target
grades due to lack of commitment rather than ability. A number of strategies were applied
including detentions but in the end unless the work showed commitment it was not going to
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

achieve a grade. Forced work tended to lack quality and depth and made no impact on the
grades overall.
It was clear that the pupils were under a lot of pressure from many areas in the school and
that they were struggling to cope. There was clear feeling from a couple that this subject was
less important than others and that they had to prioritise. By the time we reached revision
time in the last half term they were physically and mentally exhausted.



WJEC CATERING (MMa)
This is the third full year of the WJEC--GCSE catering course within St Josephs School. This
course is from the Welsh examination board.
There were initially 9 students enrolled on the course 7 male 2 female 1 of these students
were listed as G & T gifted this being KORI REWCASTLE.
Students listed as SEN were KEIRAN DOGGART, KIERAN WRIGHT.
Pupil Premium was EMMA KENNEWAY.
The remaining students were JACK WILSON, SARAH WILKINSON, ROBBIE WINTER, CONNOR
ONEILL, NATHAN IRVING.

Most students were expected to gain Cs or above.
The expected pass rate of students gaining A-C was 5, with the remainder to achieve
grade D or below

Those students expecting Cs or above initially were, KEIRAN DOGGART, KORI REWCASTLE,
JACK WILSON, ROBBIE WINTER, NATHAN IRVING, EMMA KENNEWAY.
As results went, students achieved A-C grades (33% pass rate) were KORI, KEIRAN D AND
JACK.
The breakdown being 1-A, 1-B, 1-C. 9 (as per written order)

The remaining students achieved grades, NATHAN- D, EMMA-D, SARAH- E, ROBBIE-
E, CONNOR E KIERAN W-F
The remaining grades work out as 2-D, 3-E, 1F.

Only a few students consistently produced good work, whilst others struggled with the
course as a whole. Many did try their best but in cases it was down to students ability.

This years students were quite a mix but at the lower end of skill, ability and commitment,
apart from those students that did produce good work consistently. Those that didnt--
reflected in their final grades.

Keiran D and Kori showed some very good catering skills, knife skills, presentation skills,
general knowledge of the catering industry throughout the two years.

Those students at the next level Jack, Robbie, Nathan and Emma, only Jack achieved a C.
Robbies eventual E was a shock. Those students did express some reasonable skills and
work during the two years.
Sarah, Connor and Kieran W. struggled throughout. This was down to ability and issues
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

during the course. Attendance was the main factor. Sarah with disruptive issues.

The teaching was difficult due to the mix of student ability, most notably Sarah, Connor and
Kieran W. as mentioned above. Their results did not surprise me. As for support to the
group, all students had the support as expected. Sarah, Kieran W. Were difficult as was
Connor, again low ability students.

Support was always on hand. Letters to parents, parents invited to school for 1-2-1 meetings,
phone calls, and lunch revision classes regular weekly 1-2-1s with students. Not all students
turned up-priorities in other subjects, although the students knew of these meetings.

Easter school provision again took place this year. 5 of the 9 students participated in this
revision sessionKORI, KEIRAN D, NATHAN, SARAH, KIERAN W.

As part of the catering course the food hygiene certificate level 2 was also undertaken by the
students. This was administered by Chris H. Of the 9 students only Kieran W failed. The
remaining passed.
(This extra certification allows students to have an extra qualification for the work place.
Many employers now look at this qualification from potential employees. This brings more
industrial links into the classroom. This will help for students applying for catering jobs after
leaving school. This could be in cafes, shops, hotels, restaurants etc.)

Y11 GCSE results 2014
Please add comments to highlight any positives, any concerns and any strategies that you
used that had a good effect AND/OR any strategies that need to be put into place as a
result of this years results.
This is the third two year course completed by students at the school. Of the students
ROBBIES result was a surprise dont know why. Robbie was quite good during the course
but some attendance issues probably didnt help. Attitude, attendance and disruptive issues
greatly affected Sarahs final result, as was Kieran W, and Connor. Emma too had outside
issues that affected schooling. Nathans grade was a little surprising. I was hoping for a C.
As for support for students, I arranged weekly 1-2-1 meetings in the library to support theory
work, Easter school sessions and revision sessions obviously have helped dramatically.
Booking ICT rooms also allow 1-2-1 progress on the theory work being observed. This I feel
benefited the students greatly. This will be repeated with all following year 10-11 students.
Use of PP, printed information, booklets, revision guide books, web site, past exam papers
were used to train the students for the actual exam.

As always there is great support from Chris H.
Last years great success was great to achieve (100% A-CS) this year I knew that that would
not be repeated but I have to look at those students on the course this year and their
abilities.

Those that had poor results, also generally had poor results in other subject showing a
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

similar pattern.
As a result I dont feel its down to the teaching.

As for strategies, many are in place as of the preceding years, and if so, even more intensely
this year than last year due to the ability of the group. (See above)

The present year 11s (completing 2015) are again a mixed group and I expect the same pass
rate 2 students are showing great potential for June 2015.
They too have taken the hygiene certificate administered by Chris.
The Easter school and revision sessions have shown great success and will be continued with
the 1-2-1 sessions for the current groups as mentioned.


STUDENT INDIVIDUAL FEEDBACK-REVIEW
KEIRAN DOGGART
FINAL GRADE B
Keiran moved up 2 grades from the FFT D grade to achieve a B. Very keen
student through 5 years doing Food /Tech. showed lots of skill and dedication. Poor
maths/English but has excelled with the practical element of the course. Excellent
understanding of catering. Knowledgeable. Well organised. Answered very well and with
plenty of confidence. (Has now an apprenticeship at the Trout Hotel Cockermouth, started
Aug 2014) (Hotel very impressed with skills and ability he is expressing)
NATHAN IRVING
FINAL GRADE D
Disappointing that Nathan dropped a grade from my initial target of a C but WAS in
line with FFT grade. Not well organised or planned but showed good interest in trying to get
things right. Could have got a C but poor judgement on his part and not planning better. Was
always good at answering not always right but showed willingness.
EMMA KENNEWAY
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

FINAL GRADE D
Another keen student but dropped a grade from FFT and my target of a C. family
issues and issues around school didnt help Emma but was keen if willing to put her mind to
things. Very good on the nutrition elements of the course. Showed some good base skills
during the 5 years. Rather than explore more complex recipes to show more skills Emma
played safe with her choices despite guidance from staff. This was her downfall and
unfortunately affected her final grade.
CONNOR ONEILL
FINAL GRADE E
Another student that could have done better if he organised himself and planned
better as well as attend lessons (poor attendance) Connor really struggled from day 1 of the
course. Help guidance and assistance was always on hand for himin 1-2-1 sessions of
general help in the kitchen. Theory work was a major concern for Connor again help and 1-2-
1 was there for him. Practical wise again he struggled with the basic elements for cooking.
Much time was spent guiding his work, organisation and planning. He didnt really think
things through even after assistance from CH MM. LETTERS PARENTS IN SCHOOL PHONE
CALLS all strategies used. 2 down from FFT grade, disappointing for Connor I personally
would like him to have got a C at leastWJEC have graded him higher.
KORI REWCASTLE
FINAL GRADE A
FFT grade B but Kori gained an A. Another student that showed great commitment,
with culinary skills aplenty, presentation and attention to detail. Very knowledgeable and
thorough in all aspects of work and just 6 marks off an A*. Kori proved his worth and the
result showed.
SARAH JAYNE WILKINSON
FINAL GRADE E
From day 1 I dont think Sarah really wanted to do the course and this seemed to set
the scene for the two years. She was disruptive not just to herself but to the class. This did
not go well with the others. Sarah had a bit of an ability to work well but this was quite
sporadic. She had a lot of 1-2-1 and discussions with PA JH KM to encourage participation
and support in both theory and practical lessons. Poor planning from Sarah despite
assistance and help didnt result in grades. FFT GRADED Sarah a C but dropped 2 levels.
This was however a pattern in other subjects not that that is an excuse, Sarah could have
done better with focus and attendance. Sarah did attend the easter school but did miss out
on a number of 1-2-1 sessions which would have helped. Sarah wasnt daft just acted so. Still
I was disappointed with her grade. More effort from her could have at least got a D. WJEC
have up graded 1 level anyway.
JACK WILSON
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

FINAL GRADE C
A very steady performance from Jack. FFT prediction was a C and this was his final
grade to so in line with prediction and what I expected from him. As mentioned a steady
worker with satisfactory level of skill both practical and theoretical. Jack could have pushed
himself a little more and in the end just 8 marks off gaining a B. He attended all 1-2-1
meeting sessions, but missed the Easter school. Jack produced some good dishes over the
two years and appeared skilful in a number of aspects.
ROBBIE WINTER
FINAL GRADE E
Robbie was the big surprise. Initially he showed good ideas and keen within the
practical side of the course. Robbies FFT prediction was a C and finished with an E.
Robbie was capable of achieving at least a C in my mind. This patter did repeat itself in
other subjects however. Robbie was always positive in lessons and practical wise was quite
good and with good ideas. His practical assessments could have been better with more
attention to detail and 1-2-1 and Easter school attendance would have helped theory aspect
of the course. 2 main areas he neglected to really focus on when it mattered. .
KIERAN WRIGHT
FINAL GRADE F
For Kieran this course was TOO intense for him to undertake. It was suggested at
options evening that it was not suitable to do and consequently the school/collage link
programme far suited his ability but due to other pupils on that college course Kieran didnt
want to do it and opted for the WJEC. From day one he struggled with the entirety of the
course. He did try his best which is commendable but in the end it was just too much for
him. Academically theory, practical, revision was just too intense for him. Kieran lied to
parents, about work to do and said it was completed and missed lessons. Parents were
called in and truths came out. Promises to improve did not really come forth. 1-2-1 sessions
he did not always arrive but did attend Easter school session. Mum was supportive and
appreciative of time spent with Kieran and the after school sessions we did for him to try and
get something out of the course. I personally feel sorry for Kieran as it just wasnt his thing
and overall effected my final %s. I wont turn anyone down but Kieran was one that should
not have done this course. (Could include Sarah in that equation too). Staff did all they could
and surpassed that point too to help Kieran. He was in low ability groups through his 5 years
at St Jos. I feel again his results justify all of this.

This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.




Year 11 Trawls
GRAPHICS Nat
Av.
FFT
Tgt
Dep Tgt T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 2014
A* - A 17.1% 12.3% 20% 31.58% 31.58% 14% 16% 29% 17%
A* - C 58.4% 86.5% 90% 83.77% 83.92% 85.7% 81% 83% 67%


Resistant
Materials
Nat Av. FFT
Tgt
Dep Tgt T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 2014
A* - A 11.5% 0% 12% 7.69% 7.69% 7.69% 7.69% 7.69 8%
A* - C 55.2% 84.6% 84.6% 76.92% 76.92% 68.4% 63.2% 69.2% 69%


Catering Nat Av. FFT
Tgt
Dep
Tgt
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 2014
A* - A 12.2% 0% 0% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11%
A* - C 61.7% 40% 70% 44.4% 55.56% 55.56% 55.56% 55.56%


Analysis of trends (please identify issues, interventions and impacts in relation to Most
Able / PP / Gender / SEN / L-M-H Attainers)
Issues and Interventions Impact
T1 No significant teaching staff aware and interventions
set

T2 Food and GP drop - teaching staff aware and
interventions set

This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

T3 Food consistent - GP slight drop interventions - Feb half
term day to work on practical work and letters sent to
parents of pupils not performing
Good attendance but those
in need did not attend
despite targetted letters
T4 Food and RM consistent. GP drop again - letters of
concern sent again
Tia Dalzell withdrawn. Little
parental support for students
of concern.
T5 Food and RM consistent. GP still lower than FFT-
concerns could be lower still. Significant amount not
attending after school sessions for coursework and
revision. Letters sent. Concerns expressed to JK and TR.
Letters sent for GP. Extra
sessions laid on for
afterschool and revision.
Limited turn out. Student
fatigue?
T6


Year 10 Trawls
GP Nat
Av.
FFT Tgt Dep Tgt T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
A* - A 17.1% 10.5% 10.5% 23.81% 14.29% 14.29% 19.05% 19.05% 23.81%
A* - C 58.4% 90.4% 90.4% 85.71% 85.71% 85.71% 95.24% 95.24% 90.48%


RM Nat
Av.
FFT Tgt Dep Tgt T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
A* - A 11.5
%
5.2% 5.2% 5.56% 5.26% 10.53% 10.53% 10.53% 10.53%
A* - C 55.2
%
84.2% 84.2% 66.67% 52.63% 68.42% 63.16% 63.16% 63.16%


Catering Nat
Av.
FFT Tgt Dep Tgt T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
A* - A 20% 20% 0 0 0 0 0 0
A* - C 40% 66.6% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%

This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.


Analysis of trends (please identify issues, interventions and impacts in relation to Most
Able / PP / Gender / SEN / L-M-H Attainers)
Issues and Interventions Impact
T1 No major concerns - teaching staff aware and
interventions set

T2 Review by HoD data sheet given to team, no major
issues but drop in RM A*-C to be monitored.

T3 GP students now more motivated and on target. RM and
Food consistent but no A* students in class so data
misleading

T4 GP very good - no concerns except Jamie Gullane and
Josh Walker - attendance. RM figures are slight dips - no
major concern - last project very good results in skills and
sets promsing tone for major project.

T5 Consistent across all areas.
T6 Consistent across all areas - but slight drop in GP due to
frequent absences of Katie Elliott, Jack Hilland and Lee
Parker.



Year 9 Trawls NOTE - number of students NOT percentage.
2013 2012 2011
<Level 4

Level 4+

Level 5+
29 24 31
Level 6+
124 95 82


D&T Nat Av. T1 T2 T3 % T4 % T5 T6
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

<L 4 0 0 0 0 0
L 4+ 100 100 100% 100% 100%
L 5+ 98 94 97.67% 97.67% 97.62%
L 6+ 61 63 67.4% 65.89% 73.1%
L7+ 2 5 17.83% 18.60% 20.4%

Food Nat Av. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
<L 4 0 0 0 0 0%
L 4+ 100 100 100% 100% 100%
L 5+ 97 93 96.9% 99.23% 96.8%
L 6+ 50 45 61.24% 62.02% 61.1%
L 7+ 1 0 6.98% 7.75% 7.3%


Analysis of trends (please identify issues, interventions and impacts in relation to Most
Able / PP / Gender / SEN / L-M-H Attainers)
Issues and Interventions Impact
T1 No specific concerns
T2 Review by HoD data sheet given to team, no major
issues but number of PP students and Mab
underperforming highlighted to staff for intervention.
PA to use GCSE grading for
final project to be dept
policy from Sept 2014 for
year 9 projects.
T3 Improved across dept. No specific issues of concern.
Gender difference negligible.

T4 Students below target identified and given to individual
class teachers to monitor. No significant PP or MAb
concerns although specific students named.

T5 An improvement in most MAb but still a few concerns
that R Nevins others in Yellow might not meet level.
Concern that due to option choices being made some
students coasting until end of term for RM project.

T6

This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.


Year 8 Trawls NOTE - number of students NOT percentage.
Whole
Dept
2013 2012 2011
<Level 4
3
Level 4+
18
Level 5+
76
Level 6+
43


D&T Nat Av. T1 T2 T3 % T4 % T5 T6
<L 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
L 4+ 100 100 100 100 100 100
L 5+ 75 77 81.13% 84.26% 78.7% 79.7%
L 6+ 2 9 23.58% 18.52% 13.03% 15.4%
food Nat Av. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
<L 4 0 0 0 0
L 4+ 98 93 93.27% 93.40% 94.1% 97.4%
L 5+ 48 56 77.88% 52.83% 58.94% 68.1%
L 6+ 3 1 8.65% 0.94% 1.62% 4.8%



Analysis of trends (please identify issues, interventions and impacts in relation to Most
Able / PP / Gender / SEN / L-M-H Attainers)
Issues and Interventions Impact
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

T1 No major interventions required teachers to implement
appropriate strategies.

T2 Review by HoD data sheet given to team, no major
issues

T3
T4 Validity of data from SISRA a concern - no students can
recede levels once awarded but SISRA implies this.
Questions about how recorded by SISRA
Gender - girls scoring better than boys in general
Overall dept scores are
increasing and whilst lower
in Food the final reported
grade is whole dept. Food
also does less leveled
projects than workshop and
so has less frequent data.
T5 Data seems unusual. No consistency. Data is going down
although we only add same or higher levels to trawls.
Confused.

T6 Data continues to confuse. No consistency! Girls significantly out-
performing boys. All girl
groups set up for year 9
especially at top end of
ability range. A CONCERN.


Year 7 Trawls NOTE - number of students NOT percentage.
2013 2012 2011
<Level 4
2
Level 4+
129
Level 5+
3
Level 6+
0


D&T Nat Av. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
<L 4 0 0 0 0 0
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

L 4+ 89 96 100 100 100
L 5+ 30 39 43 36.4% 61.6%
L 6+ 0 0 0 0 0
Food Nat Av. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
<L 4 100 100 100
L 4+ 86 88 81 88.4% 98.5%
L 5+ 27 10 3 18.1% 37.9%
L 6+ 0 0 0 0 0


Analysis of trends (please identify issues, interventions and impacts in relation to Most
Able / PP / Gender / SEN / L-M-H Attainers)
Issues and Interventions Impact
T1 No trawl
T2 Review by HoD data sheet given to team, no major
issues.

T3 Food - SISRA data again inconsistent by reducing % of 5+
when no reduction is possible all areas improving as
dept. No major concerns across gender or classes.

T4 Steady increases - pupils targeted as required. No major
concerns highlighted although girls significantly at higher
levels than boys (69% comapred to 12%) Area to alert
dept to.

T5 Again gender inequalities to address. Main area for
focus next year. Include in DDP.

T6 Steady and sustained improvement in levels attained in
both subject areas. Setting arrangements need careful
analysis and planning to ensure gender balance and
range of abilities.




This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.



Pupil Achievement
Overall Judgement for each Year Group (Outstanding/Good/Satisfactory/Inadequate
Year Group pa tbb mma
Year 11 inadequate G Good/ outstanding
Year 10 good S Good
Year 9 good S Good
Year 8 good G Good
Year 7 good G Good


Quality of Teaching
Include statistical details of Lesson Observations and reach an overall judgement (O/G/S/I)

All lessons of full teaching team were judged good to outstanding prior to new format.
Non trained teachers (MMA,CAS, CH) were variable and ranged from Needs Improvement to
Good with excellent features.

CAS received specific support from Helen Laidlow for a period. Useful advice given but
support phased out as CAS developed confidence and experience.
Lesson Observation Cycle
Round 1 Autumn 2013
4 observations
25% Outstanding
50% Good
25% Requires Improvement (Non QTS member of staff receiving support from HL)
All subsequent observations were seen to be good or better (although not graded) Whole
School action on MAb were witnessed in all lessons but needs further developement
especially in Food/Catering.

This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.


Overall Judgement: GOOD
Pupil Behaviour
Include brief details of positive strategies and reach a judgement O/G/S/I. Also include
results of Pupil Attitudinal survey.
PA
No major issues, limited call for external support from SLT - support requested in the form
of GCSE students and coursework issues and not poor behaviour
Continued consistent approach to expectations across department.
Learning Walks completed regularly, more than once a week when possible. No major
concerns raised as a result.
No survey done

MMA
Year 11 (now left)--Student behaviour in class was mixed. Too few students wanted to work
and make a success of the course, some worked very hard and were very keen to express
and show their skills in the kitchen.
They asked questions and knew they could come to the classroom for extra tuition. Power-
points and revision guides were produced and purchased to help with further teaching skills
for the students.
Those that did well benefited from this, and were very beneficial for the students final
results.
Poor behaviour from a minority affected others, with interventions from PA AND JH. KM
aware of issues with students.
Others good to work with some keen and enthusiastic students, to which they regularly
produce very good practical and theory work.
Year 10 (now year 11) Several concerns with some students behaviour, KIRSTY B attendance
(in hand with senior school staff-AB ) and language difficulties CINDI C.

Year 10, mainly girls in a group of 8 (1 male) lost one male due to change of subject.
Generally a good group and I have high expectations for this current year 10. Harry DB poor
writing and literacy

KS3--All pupils work well and are enthusiastic in the kitchen and classroom

As for ANY issues with students SIMS messaging, recording on department grading data
tracking, phone calls to parents take place and letters sent home have all been used to
inform parents of LLD with pupils. Parent meetings also under taken when necessary.

Overall Judgement: GOOD
Leadership and Management
This document is to be updated after each Trawl, and following the release of RAISEonline in December, and in
September following GCSE results, and all findings will then be discussed with the SLink.

MMA
I think the staff show good leadership, knowledge, enthusiasm for the subject and courses
administered to pupils and students alike. Key skills/life skills developed for future life of
pupils leaving school after year 11. Outstanding support from HOD, which is always available
at all times and likewise the support from Chris contributes equally.


Overall Effectiveness: Please grade your department O/G/S/I
GOOD