Does ICFP work in all school phases?

The short answer is that ICFP works in all types and phases of school, although the larger the class of school the more useful the metric analysis is. To answer the questions above we will look at each category in turn.

Primary Schools ICFP is highly effective in primary schools. It is the idea of teacher contact ratio and looking at the timetable cycle that sometimes lead to allegations that ICFP is not suitable for primary schools. However, the way that teaching staff are deployed to the curriculum is as important in primary schools as in secondary schools. Any primary school leader will realise that following the implementation of PPA time primary schools are no longer organised on the principle of one teacher per class. Primary schools also provide a very wide base of data from which to make metric comparisons.

Special Schools ICFP works well for special schools, but more as discussion starters rather than providing easily quantifiable comparisons. The mix of pupils, and their very different needs, within each special schools mean that the metrics have to be treated with a degree of caution, but the metrics are excellent for opening discussions about whether the structures in our school are the right structures and are they having the impact that we want them to have.

All-Through Schools The metrics work well for all-through schools, but need to be treated with some caution as the evidence base is relatively small as there are a limited number of all-through schools to provide evidence. Sometimes it is better to undertake two ICFP comparisons by splitting the primary and secondary phases, but if this approach is taken it is important to make reasoned and evidence-based decisions about how shared staff and resources are split.

Middle Schools There is a better evidence base of middle schools than there is of all-through schools and so the ICFP approach is more reliable. Middle schools use a variety of approaches to how they use whole class teaching and subject-based teaching, but the impact of these decisions can be reviewed through the ICFP approach.

PRUs and APs ICFP can work well for PRUs and APs; however, as with special schools, the ICFP will raise more questions than providing answers as the range of services provided differs significantly between schools. Some APs and PRUs, for example, offer a greater range of outreach services than others and some have a greater number of school-funded turnaround places than others. The approach will still raise interesting strategic information and generate important questions about the structure of the provision.

ICFP, therefore, is a useful tool regardless of the nature of the school. Some phases have a greater evidence-base to draw on and a smaller range of individual and specific features. But the fewer comparators and the more diverse the schools just changes the balance from definite answers towards generating analytical questions.