Work scrutinies, or “book looks”, are commonly used for quality assurance in schools. But how effective are they?
Both middle and senior leaders are often asked to carry out work scrutinies without any specific training on how to do this. That means the approach is rarely well used.
The biggest problem with most work scrutinies is that leaders hope to see the impact of the curriculum in students’ books. However, the impact of the curriculum should be learning. The work in a book is merely the process that we hope will lead to that learning.
Another problem is when leaders look for particular things in books - written feedback given in a certain way, for example, or evidence of a specific form of vocabulary support. But with a dozen or so different subjects, all needing to approach problems in subtly different ways, it might not be possible to see a specific thing in all the books.
Rather than looking for things, then, we are better off looking at them.
Taking this approach, we can use work scrutinies to answer the following key questions that will help us towards school improvement.
Is the curriculum being covered?
This is the starting point for many work scrutinies. Looking through a class set of books should give an indication of whether teachers are covering what you thought they were covering.
It helps to do this with a copy of the scheme of work in hand, so that you can identify any gaps.
If there are gaps in coverage, it suggests subsequent questions that need following up on: why do these gaps exist? Is it because the curriculum is trying to cover too much? Is it because other things, such as poor behaviour, are taking too much of the teacher’s time in the lesson? Or is it because the teacher lacks confidence in teaching an element of the curriculum and so skips past it?
It is unlikely a work scrutiny will have all the answers, but it will suggest which questions to ask next.
How similar do books look?
This is always an interesting question. If books look identical, with pupils completing work that is word for word the same, it would suggest that they are not having to think for themselves and are simply copying work down. If work looks completely different, it might suggest that pupils are learning very different things and are not having access to the same curriculum. This would raise questions about why this is the case.
Are pupils doing activities that are likely to lead to learning?
As mentioned, you can’t see learning in a book, but you can use your knowledge of pedagogy to work out if the type of activity being used is likely to support learning.
For example, if pupils are copying definitions down, but there is no evidence of them going on to use those words in their work, it is unlikely they have learned them. Or, if they are spending their history lesson colouring in a map of troop movements, it is possible that lesson time has not been well spent.
However, we have to bear in mind that evidence in books is only a suggestion; it is possible that the process that turned these activities into learning has simply not been captured on paper but has happened elsewhere.
Are policies being followed?
Books can give an indication of whether policies introduced by the school - on feedback, how lessons should begin or end, or the way pupils should be supported, for instance - are being implemented.
If books show no signs of these policies, there is a follow-up question of “why not?” What are the barriers in implementing the policy that leaders may not have foreseen? What can we learn from the experience of these teachers?
Is CPD having an impact?
Leaders spend a lot of time and energy on professional development, but it can be hard for them to tell if this is making a difference to classroom practice. Work scrutinies can help here, by suggesting whether or not processes have changed.
If there has been CPD on making retrieval practice more effective, for example, can you see evidence of a change in practice before and afterwards?
Whatever we see when we look at pupils’ work, we need to remember that this, on its own, tells us very little. What it does do is give us lines of enquiry to follow up on, in discussions with pupils and teachers, or when visiting lessons.
Ultimately, work scrutiny is valuable not for the answers it gives us but for the questions it poses.
Mark Enser is a freelance writer and former HMI
You can now get the UK’s most trusted source of education news in a mobile app. The iOS version is coming soon
