‘The term ‘accountability’ describes a relationship whereby one party – sometimes interpreted as an individual, sometimes an institution – has an obligation to account for their actions or performance to another’ (Brundrett & Rhodes, 2011, p.4)

Despite the stark simplicity of Brundrett and Rhodes’ definition displayed above, accountability and quality assurance form the complex foundation of a modern-day framework in education. It is a framework which promotes a continuous relationship between reviewing and striving to improve provision and academic achievement. Both facets thrive upon the construction of a united culture and vision in order for educational establishments and their pupils to reach their fullest potential. When reflecting upon schools in 2018, the level of accountability and quality assurance processes completed internally is potentially at its highest as a result of increasing levels of responsibility being placed on schools. In order to understand the reasons for such change however, it is of utmost importance to detail and review the historical journey of school accountability over the past 44 years commencing with the William Tyndale Affair in 1974. 
	John Davis openly states, ‘The William Tyndale Junior School Affair marked a turning point in Educational History’ (Davis, 2002, p.275) and argues that the school was in fact the catalyst for great change in terms of both accountability and quality assurance in education.  The high level of autonomy that was granted to all stakeholders at William Tyndale Junior School created an opportunity for unconventional leadership and pedagogical styles to permeate through the establishment. Unconventionality such as ‘being encouraged to play Monopoly in order to learn to destroy capitalism’ (Auld, 1976, p.22), led to an internal divide and to the fragmentation of school unity in terms of relationships between parents and teachers and local authorities and the school. With this disunion in mind therefore, it is understandable why a revolt against ‘politically motivated teachers [being allowed] to experiment with their way-out ideas on innocent children' (Auld, 1976, p.20) led to the abatement of school and teacher autonomy. It was in fact due to this highly complex and controversial affair, that the failings of progressive educational approaches in addition to the inadequacies of local authorities were exposed. The Auld Report (1976) formally detailed the findings of investigations into William Tyndale School and highlighted the need for greater accountability in schools. In so doing, the report and the controversy in itself ultimately sparked a national response which came in the form of Prime Minister James Callaghan’s infamous speech at Ruskin College in 1976. 
	When reflecting upon Callaghan’s Ruskin Speech it is evident that he wished to trigger a debate through contesting what was deemed to be the ‘secret garden of the education world; a place inhabited by unaccountable teachers and a loose curriculum’ (Millar, 2016). Throughout his speech, Callaghan openly queried the role of accountability and made the bold move to suggest that teaching professionals were no longer deemed to be independent in their views of what should occur in the field of education. He also raised questions about curriculum provision and the knowledge pupils were ascertaining prior to leaving education, very much making links with the needs of industry and importance of governmental input. With this in mind therefore, it is clear that the consequences of the William Tyndale Affair were wider reaching than could have been originally anticipated. 
Having considered the William Tyndale affair and Callaghan’s response in the form of the Ruskin speech, it is evident that both drew attention to lacking accountability systems. Upon this matter, Hinds argues that at the time of the controversy, ‘you just appointed a good headteacher, and then he ran the show' (Hinds, 1973, p.23) - so suggesting that local authority input and governmental instruction was negligible. Chitty further suggests Callaghan's speech was in fact a ‘necessary shift in the dominant metaphor of informed educational discourse: from 'partnership' to 'accountability’' (Chitty, 2002, p.264). In contrast however, it could be argued that limited accountability systems afforded the profession with invaluable opportunities to truly comprehend the importance of teaching autonomy. Upon this matter, Ramos states that such opportunity is ‘paramount in order for teachers to be able to guide students in the development of autonomous behaviours’ (Ramos, 2000, p.2). Mausethagen further comments that over saturation of accountability frameworks ‘often leads to less attention being paid to the caring and relational aspects of teachers’ work’ (Mausethagen, 2012, p.18) so suggesting that establishing a co-constructed balance between accountability and education is key. It is undoubtedly necessary to consider the varying perspectives upon this matter. However, what is most evident is that the failings of accountability systems at this time stretched much further than William Tyndale School. The scandal merely highlighted tension that was present between the ‘hopeless Byzantine mess of divisional and central administration' (Brighouse, 1992, p.59) in the form of the LEAs and educational establishments. It was in fact this tension that not only led to the diminishment of public confidence in education but also became the catalyst for Ruskin’s declaration ultimately prompting change on a much larger scale.
	National reform was most prevalent during the Prime Ministerial term of Margaret Thatcher. In 1980, the role of the government in education altered alongside ever developing opinions about the appropriateness of curriculum content, standards being achieved and the extent to which establishments were providing value for their level of monetary investment. The Education Act of 1980 (Education England, 1980) notably ‘set out to achieve a new balance between the rights of parents and the necessity of LEA management’ (Stillman, 2006, 4) and in so doing signified a shift in accountability in education. It also sought to provide parents with increased powers and enforced the development of governing bodies in academic establishments which included parent representatives. Furthermore, the Education Act of 1986 (Education England, 1986) also looked to further establish the responsibility of the governing body within schools and sought to reduce the influences of local education authorities. This was achieved by presenting governors with opportunities to comment upon development of the curriculum and staffing processes. When reflecting upon the reasons behind the depleting role of local authorities at this time, Derek Gillard states that ‘For Thatcher, the LEAs - many of them Labour-controlled - were an irritant, blocking central government's ability to affect what was going on in the schools’ (Gillard, 2018). If Gillard’s perspective was in fact the case, it could suggest that changes such as granting governors greater powers, were in fact carried out to dismantle the systems developed by the 1944 Education Act (Education England, 1944).
	When reviewing the changes made to accountability early on in Margaret Thatcher’s term, it is evident that the promotion of parental voice and establishment of governing bodies developed mixed feelings in the field of education.  At this time, she openly spoke importance of parental and pupil voice in education and was keen to construct a new type of dynamic between individuals within the community, and the state through the promotion of parental voice and governor accountability. In accordance with Thatcher’s belief, Harris et al. state that the involvement of parents in all aspects of school development plays a crucial part in the social function of the community and the productivity of schools (Harris et al, 2008, p.278). However, the DES openly comment that the changes made in 1980 were not to be deemed positive progress but as part of a governmental shift ‘to put parents, governing bodies and headteachers under the pressure of public accountability for improving standards’ (DES, 1992, p.18). With the views presented above in mind therefore, it seems that the introduction of a compulsory governing body and increased parental influence became a concept of much debate. However, what is most clear is that Thatcher inherited an Educational accountability system that was largely unproductive and that the changes to be made would have to be dramatic in order to have any formal impact. By pushing responsibility back into schools through the role of Governors, individual establishments were forced to take accountability for their levels of productivity and provision on a much larger scale. Most importantly however, the concept of reflective leadership was established as schools were encouraged to acknowledge their successes within the same capacity as actionable areas for improvement.   
In spite of the changes made in 1980, some suggest that it was in fact the Education Reform Act of 1988 (Education England, 1988) which caused a fundamental shift in educational control. At this time, a National Curriculum (Education England, 1988) was published which encouraged all academic establishments to provide the same subject content to pupils between the ages of 7 and 16. However, this national reform saw the promotion of performance over progress with the introduction of examinations and school league tables that publicly ranked establishments based upon results. When reflecting upon the development of a compulsory and prescriptive National Curriculum in addition to formal examinations and league tables it is understandable that there are differing opinions about the choices made at this time. As Wyse suggests, prior to the introduction of the National Curriculum, teachers were granted the autonomy to implement learning which they deemed to be most relevant and responded most effectively to the needs of learners (Wyse, 2008, p. 2).  In addition, Ruotanen states that the introduction of the curriculum formally ‘enforced the importance of school accountability over the individual needs of pupils’ (Ruotanen, 2001, p. 4) so emphasising the negative implication of moving away from opportunities for personalised learning. In contrast however, when considering establishments such as William Tyndale School, it is evident that the profession required a curriculum that would promote equality and fairness within education. It was felt that through the introduction of a National Curriculum, all children would be afforded the same opportunities and that the accountability of pupil progress would be easier to assess. 
By encouraging schools to provide the same learning experiences for their pupils alongside the development of constant assessment protocols, it was thought that there would be a greater sense of fairness. League tables were therefore introduced in order to positively impact standards and as Noden states, ‘may provide a yardstick against which the school’s admissions may be assessed and reviewed’ (Noden, 2014, p.5). However, in response to this format places in ‘top schools’ became competitive whereas those needing to develop were finding it difficult to fill places as parents were avoiding those that were less successful than others. This therefore widened the gap even further between oversubscribed, top of the league table and thriving schools to those which needed support to improve standards prior to these alterations. 
The changes introduced in 1988 also prompted the development of the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). In contrast to its predecessor, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI), OFSTED was to complete a much more rigorous inspectorate process when fully established in 1992. When reflecting upon these changes, Case et al suggest that the completion of OFSTED inspections is merely ‘stage managed accountability that has no lasting impact on classroom practise’ (Case et al, 2010, 605). In contrast however, when further reflecting upon the requirements of OFSTED such as publishing schools which were placed in ‘special measures’, Bevan and Wilson herald the success of ‘naming and shaming’ stating that ‘it improves performance on a consistent basis’ (Bevan & Wilson, 2012, p1). When reviewing the establishment of OFSTED therefore, it seems clear that there are many varying perspectives about this matter.  The changes in educational discourse up to this point undoubtedly required the development of a more up to date inspectorate service. However, the suggestions made by Case et al in that the process of accountability in this form is undoubtedly ‘staged’ does pose the question as to whether OFSTED is productive in accountability or merely a ‘grand political cipher created and maintained to satisfy the imagined scrutinising gaze of a wider public’ (Case et al, 2010, 605).  
In addition to the ‘gaze’ of the OFSTED system, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) created the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) which targeted 15-year-old pupils by testing their level of understanding in mathematics, science and reading. When the initial assessment was released in 2000, its suggested aims were to generate data which would be comparable between different countries around the world and hoped positive changes would be made to national policies and standards as a result of this information.  In contrast however, the introduction of PISA testing meant that governmental initiatives largely rotated around the low ranking that was achieved by the UK in the assessment process. In response, Grek discerns that PISA ‘has become an indirect, but nonetheless influential tool of the new political technology of governing the European education space by numbers’ (Grek, 2008, p.23), further arguing that the introduction of such testing has encouraged an over emphasis upon data. By encouraging schools to evaluate their attainment levels in a punitive manner, it is evident that the ‘PISA Effect’ is still being felt even today as continuing underperformance has become yet another driver for additional accountability measures.
Such focus upon data was further emphasised in 2004 by David Miliband, the Minister of State for School Standards, who pioneered a ‘New Relationship with Schools’ programme (Education England, 1988) in which the development and analysis of data sat akin to the importance of ‘intelligent accountability’ (Education England, 1988, p.4). Miliband acknowledged previous inspection frameworks had placed overwhelming pressure upon the profession and argued that robust internal evaluation systems would be far more beneficial within the education sector. He implored that schools should be afforded the opportunity to share their personal judgements within inspections by identifying both strengths and areas for future development. Hopkins commented upon this approach when stating that the modern-day school must start "holding itself publicly accountable through publishing its own strengths and weaknesses and benchmark comparisons, giving a more rounded picture of the school's performance" (Hopkins, 2007, p.94). It was Milibands aim therefore to develop an equilibrium between both external and internal forms of accountability to guarantee that all educational establishments ‘worked effectively and efficiently towards both the common good and the fullest development of their pupils’ (Hopkins, 2007, p.97). This balance was sought after through the introduction of School Improvement Partners (SIPs), a reduction on inspection time and a more cohesive approach to data. Changes which were further complimented by the Education Act of 2005 (Education England, 2005) which sought to further reduce the burden of inspection without compromising on its thoroughness and emphasised the importance of self-evaluation. In spite of such promise however, it seems important to note that all three elements of the 1990s public accountability model – tests, tables and inspection – still continued and therefore counteracted Miliband’s hopes to decrease workload and empower schools under the umbrella of internal accountability. 
In contrast to Miliband’s aspirations however, the appointment of Michael Gove as Secretary of State in Education in 2010 resulted in a radical and somewhat controversial shift in educational accountability and quality assurance. His vision for education stemmed from a desire for strong governmental interference in terms of both what should be done in schools and how it should be actioned, thus leaving limited opportunity for creativity or adaption. Gove’s contradictory yet directive style of leadership pushed accountability further into schools through his proposal of progress data bench marking, thus adding to the performance pressures already in place between KS2 and KS4. With these changes in mind, it could be argued that Gove’s relentless desire for educational reform did in fact fall to the detriment of the teaching profession on a national scale in many ways. On the one hand Gove often discussed the need to improve standards and ensure the rigour of both internal and external accountability systems, but he failed to acknowledge that the teaching profession was not ready for such a vast amount of change over such a limited period of time.
Having considered the most influential developments in accountability and quality assurance on a wider scale up to this point, it seems apt to now delve into the most influential changes in this field that have occurred in Welsh Education since academic devolution in 2000. In 2002, Estyn, an independent company was employed by the Welsh Assembly to inspect the provision and standards of educational establishments across Wales. Running in a similar format to OFSTED and with exceptionally similar successes and limitations within the initial years, Estyn provides advice on expectations for standards and provision on a national level. 
The need for continuing improvement in Welsh School accountability and quality assurance was also echoed in the ‘School Effectiveness Framework’ which was disseminated in 2008. This document boasts a ‘tri-level reform’ (Welsh Government, 2008, p.2) based upon the active collaboration of schools, local authorities and the Assembly Government in order to secure continuous improvement in ‘children’s and young people’s learning and wellbeing throughout Wales’ (Welsh Government, 2008, p.2). Upon this matter, Holtom suggests that ‘networks of schools have encouraged and facilitated collaboration and are reported to be helping to share ideas on a wide scope’ Holtom, 2008, p.59) so exemplifying the success of such initiative in promoting an ethos of shared accountability. However, when reflecting upon the construct of a supposed tri-level working, it is clear that the constructs of accountability are once again hazy. The document under publication clearly boasts a desire for equality within accountability in a very top-heavy profession. This is best displayed by the evident motivation behind the development of the ‘School Effectiveness Framework’ (2008).  By directly quoting performance data from 2006, the Welsh Government reveals that the changes to be made are in direct response to PISA results. This in turn undermines the very notion of a co-constructed model based upon equality as by placing authorities and school in the position of being ‘responsive’ to the Welsh Government’s handing down of the accountability for National performance. 
This dynamic can also be visible when considering the Robert Hill Report of 2013 which focused upon ‘The Future Delivery of Education Services in Wales’ (Hill, 2013) and directly tackled accountability. Hill stated that ‘The best accountability systems are designed to also include broader student learning objectives and to encourage schools to remain aspirational’(Hill, 2013, p.75). With this in mind, Hill heralds the recent introduction of the KS3 banding system, the use of the ‘My Local School’ website to ensure data is accessible to all, and the development of benchmarking groups being denoted as examples of excellence in promoting the development of effective accountability. In spite of such positive beliefs however, it seems important to consider the negative implications of such an overwhelming commitment to assuring quality of schools. When reflecting upon the constructs Hill defines as the best features of accountability in Welsh Education, it is impossible to avoid acknowledging the additional pressures they place upon an already strained profession. It seems important therefore to question whether, as Mausethagen suggests, the growing drift towards fulfilling accountability processes is in fact to ‘the detriment of both teacher wellbeing and pupil development’ (Mausethagen, 2012, p.21). 
In accordance with Hill’s triangulated approach, the ‘National Model for Regional Working’ (2014), sought to formally introduce Regional Consortiums and the formation of a shared journey between schools, Consortia representatives and the Welsh Government. Consortiums were to take on the complex position of promoting equitable accountability in schools by gaining total control of leading and coordinating improvement in performance and provision. In addition, schools were also introduced to the ‘National School Categorisation System’ (Welsh Government, 2014) which was deemed to unite the progress made by Secondary School banding systems by further establishing them within the Primary context more progressively than the original banding process developed in 2011. The colours green, amber or red were used to convey the level of productivity within the school and to allocate appropriate levels of support. On reflection, it is understandable that the introduction of both accountability constructs in such a short time frame would be met with a mixture of opinions. Upon publication, it was suggested that the systems being introduced were ‘not about labelling schools’ but were there to ensure that areas for development were correctly identified and effectively supported. However, it is difficult to see the contradictory nature of such publications as anything other than the dissemination of a promise of support in exchange for further increasing the vulnerability of schools in the name of accountability. 
When reflecting on the last four years of education alone therefore, it is clear that accountability and the importance of quality assurance has not declined. In addition to the measures mentioned above, Welsh Education has also seen the introduction of the ‘Literacy and Numeracy Framework’ (Welsh Government, 2014) which would coincide with the introduction of the National Numeracy and Literacy Tests. This formalised mode of assessment is one way in which the Welsh Government attain data of pupil attainment and school progress based upon pupils from Year 2 onwards. The data produced by such processes is then used in a variety of ways to hold teachers, leaders and local authorities as a whole, accountable for scored based progress.  In contrast, when reflecting upon the developing ‘New Curriculum’ (Welsh Government, 2017) which is based upon Graham Donaldson’s ‘Successful Futures’ (Donaldson, 2015), it is evident that his approach to curriculum development almost reverts back to elements of that seen in the education system of 1975. He promotes greater learning autonomy and teacher creativity. However, what is also clear within Donaldson’s approach is that government intervention is still highly sought and the place of established national testing within the new framework is still largely unknown. Without this definition, the accountability associated with the New Curriculum is largely questionable. It could be argued that the freedom and creativity that Donaldson so encourages will be unattainable if current assessment approaches are maintained. However, it must also be acknowledged that the removal of such formal measures, as is currently provided by the national assessments, and the promotion of freedom could potentially lead us back to the chaos of previous times. 
Having detailed and reviewed the historical journey of accountability on both a national and local level, it seems clear that great change has occurred since the William Tyndale Affair in 1974. What is also evident is that such change has resulted in a vast array of literature which both agrees and disagrees with the decisions made. Over time many individuals have sought to define the inextricably convoluted relationship which lies between accountability, quality assurance and success. In spite of this, having explored the vast changes that have occurred over the past 44 years, it could in fact be argued that the simplicity of Brundrett and Rhodes’ statement in 2011 actually provides a refreshing perspective that accountability and quality assurance can be exceptionally simplistic concepts. However, what is most prevalent is that in order for such simplicity to be possible, stakeholders and establishments must be willing to play an equitable part in a ‘united culture’ by striving for quality in education whilst also acknowledging that they are ultimately accountable for their choices.
At the start of the Academic year of 2017-18 the Maths Coordinators here at School T completed a review to identify ways forward for whole school development. The following SWOT analysis (See Figure 1) was completed to identify the ‘Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats’ which faced the delivery and development of maths here at School T and was used to inform further discussions about the subject: 
After completing the process of SWOT analysis, it seemed evident that the area for greatest development in the subject of mathematics was in fact the improvement of mental calculation. At this time, it was considered that poor speed of recall and underdevelopment of key mental maths skills was negatively impacting upon school performance. 
With this in mind therefore, a review process took place in which the Maths Coordinators carried out an assessment of pupil voice feedback, a study of National Test papers and performance data from 2017 and held a teacher assessment feedback session in which information was ascertained about mental maths throughout the school. The information below conveys the detailed findings of the baseline assessment of mental maths and speed of mental recall here at School T.
In order to explore pupil attitudes towards maths at this time, 3 pupils from Year 2 onwards were asked about their opinions of the subject. During the assessment, pupils were encouraged to speak freely about what they deemed to be the ‘best’ part of their learning experiences in maths lessons and what was deemed to be their ‘least favourite’ aspect of the subject. Out of the 15 pupils spoken to, 12 pupils suggested that the best aspects of maths were those which let them lead the learning and explore different ways of solving the work at hand. All 15 pupils also suggested that most of maths was enjoyable when a combination of different learning styles are mixed together such as using i-Pads, practical equipment or physical stimuli. In addition, pupils commented that However, when reflecting upon their ‘least favourite’ aspects of maths, all 15 pupils commented negatively upon their daily times table slot with terms such as “boring”, “it’s just not fun” and “I really don’t think I learn from it” being used to describe their learning experiences.  
When also completing an assessment of our internal tracking system, INCERTs, it was clear that the progress pupils made against descriptors which were directly linked to mental calculation was limited. It was discovered that 27% of pupils between Year 2 and Year 6 inclusively were not achieving expected progress and that no pupils achieved above expected progress within this aspect of maths. When further reflecting upon the end of Foundation Phase outcomes and Key Stage 2 levels awarded in July 2017, out of the 50 pupils being assessed 19 pupils did not achieve the expected level for independent mental calculation. It also became clear that in both phases all pupils that were awarded Outcome 6 and Level 5 in mathematics did so without achieving the mental maths descriptor. Upon reflection, the data presented above compliments the discovery that 32% of pupils who sat the National Numeracy Tests did not complete their papers within the allocated time frame - the questions that proved to be least successful within both procedural and numeracy tests were ones which required the direct use of times tables knowledge or the application of a mental maths skill. 
In our Teacher Assessment Feedback Session, Year 2 and Year 6 data was shared with staff in order to convey the level of times tables acquisition that was present at the end of each phase – 37% of Year 2 pupils did not know their 2, 5 and 10 times tables and 27% of Year 6 pupils did not attain their 3, 4, 7 and 8 times tables with the expected degree of independence and fluency. Staff openly discussed the current provision in place for mental maths and suggested that the traditional approach of learning by rote was disengaging the pupils and not proving to be effective in encouraging the acquisition of key skills. 
Having completed the baseline assessment, all teaching staff reconvened to consider the key themes for further development that arose as a result of the review process.  The assessment ultimately revealed that pupils had a negative view of acquiring their multiplication tables and clearly stated that the aspects of learning they most enjoyed were interactive and involved ICT wherever possible. This suggested that their enjoyment of mental maths would improve if its teaching was more engaging and modern.  It was agreed that this attitudinal issue could be detrimental to the outcome of whole school performance data as success within National Tests and end of Phase data is greatly reliant upon the ability to complete mental calculation in an independent environment. The degree of independence that is also required to award a More Able and Talented (MAT) child expected Outcome/ Level +1, holds a much greater weighting than in any other core subject and could therefore explain one reason why MAT pupils were currently underperforming in the subject. Having completed the initial review process therefore, it seemed clear that the approach to mental calculation here at School T was in need of revival through the intervention of more modern ways of teaching a largely traditional skill.  
In response to this finding, the Maths Coordinators completed research to ascertain information about the most up to date mental maths approaches. During this time our Maths Coordinators also visited a variety of schools which were deemed to be displaying best practise within this area of the curriculum. When visiting School A, School B and School C it became clear that mental maths approaches at our school were in desperate need of innovation and that a multi-faceted approach would be the most effective way to target the two key elements of our chosen area for improvement – namely the acquisition of times tables and the ability to improve speed of recall by having access to a personalised mode of calculation. 
With this in mind, a combination of interactive times tables challenges through ‘Times Table Rockstars’ and provision in homework through ‘J2Blast’ was considered to be possible. In addition, Andrell Education’s ‘Big Maths’ was also chosen as it was deemed to be an exciting whole school approach to mental maths which catered for the vast variety of needs whilst also providing every pupil with opportunities to progress and succeed. Upon discussion with staff, it was decided that in order for this type of intervention to be employed most effectively, and having seen it in a fully establish manner in School B, all pupils across the school would be split into ability groupings which were to be defined by a numbered ‘CLIC’ or group in which they would be given the opportunity to develop their number skills in a 20 minute ‘Big Maths’ lesson on a daily basis. These sessions were observed to be quick in pace, engaging and innovative. In addition to celebrating the positive aspects of the initiatives it was also important to consider the challenges that may arise as a result of their introduction. From the outset - time, funding, performance pressures, the opposition of stakeholders and possible conflict with the ever developing ‘New Curriculum’ were deemed to be the key threats to the introduction of new interventions. 
Consideration was first paid to time constraints. Following whole staff discussion it was suggested that the ‘Times Tables Rockstars’ should become part of an already established revision session slot and that time would be given for each class to be set up by the Maths Coordinators. In its very nature this programme is a fully resourced, pupil-led online scheme which is very self-sufficient and is not time consuming as resources are pre-prepared and accessed by the pupils independently. ‘J2Blast’ was to be introduced in a Maths Coordinator assembly slot and pupils were to be encouraged to use the application both in their spare time and during their allocation for I-Pad Club and ICT Club on a Friday afternoon.  In addition, ‘Big Maths’ would be timetabled in a way which did not alter the provision for other curriculum areas but in fact replaced current times table provision during the initial morning slot. With this in mind therefore it was deemed that the threat posed by an over saturated curriculum and additional timetable pressures was minimised due to forward planning and negotiation regarding the needs of all age ranges. By adopting this approach, it was felt that the effect of performance pressures currently in place would not be further exacerbated.
Consideration was next paid to financial constraints. Initially, when 3 approaches were decided upon it was feared that the financial constraints proposed by our school budget could prove problematic. However, it was discovered that ERW were formally funding the use of ‘Times Tables Rockstars’ and that the HWB platform included ‘J2Blast’ without additional cost to schools. Upon further research of ‘Big Maths’ it was clear that an initial cost of £2000 would be needed to resource the initiative and train staff but that the approach would be self-serving with internal training deemed sufficient to maintain the quality of delivery from that point on. Along with the support of the Governing Body, it was decided that the investment of £2000 was possible for the quality of resource we would be purchasing in the context of our school budget. 
When also considering our development of the ‘New Curriculum’ here at School T, it seemed evident that the teaching approaches within the chosen initiatives in fact aligned with Donaldson’s suggested ways forward for pedagogy. Through the introduction of the 3 chosen approaches, it was clear that pupils would be encouraged to make connections in their learning, complete cross curricular application questions and participate in blended learning activities which rotate around a balance between ICT based activities and traditional modes of teaching. Furthermore, it was also felt that the opportunities for pupils to explore calculation-based trial and error activities in ‘Big Maths’ would further enhance learning power.
Throughout the research process the Maths Coordinators focused upon eliminating the risk posed by the possibility of Stakeholders opposing the changes that were needing to be made. This was completed in a variety of ways but mainly rotated around ensuring that everyone felt that the process was inclusive and that their opinions and ideas were valued throughout. During the research period, a parent forum and a Maths Open Day was completed involving Governors and community members; both of which presented as opportunities to gather thoughts regarding the initiatives and resulted in valuable ideas and questions being shared. All school staff were also present during the planning stages of the initiatives to ensure that the approach that was chosen was representative of a united perspective. After consideration was paid to possible difficulties which could arise when implementing the changes mentioned above, all 3 were established following the necessary training, the initial engagement of pupils and the collection of ‘Big Maths’ baseline scores at the start of the Spring Term 2018.  The initiatives ran for the remainder of the year and comparative data was able to be collected at the end of the Summer Term. The information below conveys the detailed findings of the final assessment.
At the end of the Summer Term, the same representative pupil voice sample used to inform our baseline were re-interviewed about their opinion of mathematics. During this session, original responses were read out loud and pupils were asked to comment as to whether anything about their opinion of the subject had changed. Out of the 15 pupils spoken to, all pupils spoke about their enjoyment within the subject with particular mention to ‘J2Blast’ and ‘Times Tables Rockstars’ which notably “motivates” and “engages” pupils in a “fun” and “exciting” way when encouraging them to learn their times tables. All participants also spoke positively about the changes made to the times table time slot and commented upon how much better ‘Big Maths’ was at giving them the confidence to try mental calculation. It was clear to see that pupil attitudes to acquiring mental math skills and times table knowledge had improved by the enthusiasm with which they spoke about the changes made.  
When reviewing the baseline data that was acquired using INCERTs, it was evident that progress had been made in relation to skills specifically targeting mental maths. The previous 27% of pupils between Year 2 and Year 6 inclusively that were not achieving expected progress had decreased to 7% with 15% of pupils also achieving above expected progress. When returning to reflect upon the end of Foundation Phase outcomes and Key Stage 2 levels awarded in July 2018, out of the 53 pupils being assessed only 4 pupils did not achieve the expected level for independent mental calculation. Also, in direct contrast to our baseline assessment, at the end of the academic year 2017-2018 all pupils granted an Outcome 6, or a Level 5 achieved the mental maths descriptor following the intervention. The data below also shows progress made throughout the initial 2 terms of ‘Big Maths’ with expected progress being 2 CLIC groups:  
When analysing the data produce by the ‘Big Maths’ tracking system, it seemed clear that the intervention had successfully helped all pupils made some form of progress in their level of mental computation and that 84% of pupils achieved expected progress within the scheme with the exception of Reception. It was felt that this anomaly occurred because Reception is the first year of formal education and that the process of moving the pupils as part of the intervention led to issues with settling. Due to this disruption which ultimately impacted upon the progress of our youngest pupils, thoughts on how to address the issue have already been considered and feature as part of our concluding formal recommendations. This was deemed to be our only newly developed ‘risk factor’ throughout the intervention process.   
When considering pupil performance in the National Tests of 2018, it was clear that the previous 32% of pupils that were found to not have completed the test in the time given had in fact decreased to 22% ensuring a slight improvement in our whole school performance data and the ways in which we compare to both local and national averages. In spite of the fact this was still deemed to be high, it seemed important to remember that the interventions had only been in place for a term prior to the sitting of the National Tests and that greater improvement is hoped for within the next assessment cycle. By the end of the year 87% of Year 2 pupils also knew their 2, 5 and 10 times tables with an increase of 24% and 89% of Year 6 pupils attained their 3, 4, 7 and 8 times tables with the expected degree of independence or fluency which was an increase of 16% both of which showed marked improvement.   
In light of the positive impact the interventions have evidently had upon pupils here at School T, we feel it is important to now share our next targets for Mathematics. The recommendations featured below have been informed by the research, intervention and review processes detailed within this document and provide a basis for whole school development targets for the current academic year 2018-2019. 
Formal Recommendations
•	Further develop the ‘Big Maths’ tracking grid so the system can provide individualised pupil feedback and can be used to target pupils for intervention as support or challenge to extend.
•	Develop a Level 6 mental computation scheme of work to prepare for Level 5 pupils who could excel in future years.
•	Provision for Reception classes is to remain in class to avoid too many transition periods during a year which needs to be focused upon settling pupils. 
•	Continue to monitor progress and keep training up to date to ensure provision is of a high standard. 
•	Continue to promote stakeholder links in order to maintain unity as the schemes evolve over the coming years. 
•	Fully embed ‘Times Table Rockstars’, ‘J2Blast’ and ‘Big Maths’, promoting them wherever possible in order to continue to make progress in terms of whole school data and pupil achievements in mental maths. 
Having completed report, we as Maths Coordinators were tasked to review our research approach in relation to the National Leadership Standards (2011). The purpose of this review is to consider areas of success against the 6 sub sections of expectations for national leadership and to collate evidence for the strands covered. 
	When reflecting upon the first sub section, ‘Creating Strategic Direction’, the standards included in the table below (see Figure 3) convey the aspects that we felt were most successful within the context of our project: 
Throughout the project, we ensured that our vision for Maths was clearly conveyed to all staff members in order to create an environment which would allow us to be as successful as possible. By developing this inclusive way of working, we were able to co-construct a set of objectives which could be used to inform whole school improvement not only for the academic year of 2017-2018 but also for future years. The ways in which we encouraged all stakeholders to participate in the project also resulted in staff being motivated and engaged with the change as they were positive about the difference it could make to our pupils and the school. To maintain this enthusiasm, creativity and innovation had to be at the centre of the changes being made. New technologies such as online programmes and interactive applications were chosen to complement, but not replace, the successes of our best traditional modes of teaching. In addition, by employing a combination of 3 different initiatives, the diverse context of our school with its high percentages of English as an Additional Language and Additional Learning Needs pupils were not only acknowledged but were fully catered for. Our commitment to continuous improvement was also displayed through the development of formal recommendations for the subject and the initiatives put in place. The targets created as part of our process have been formally acknowledged in the Maths section of the 2018-2019 SDP and will be tracked and monitored throughout. 
When paying consideration to the second sub section, ‘Leading Learning and Teaching’, the following standards (see Figure 4) depict the aspects that we felt were our strongest within this area: 
	Upon reflection, the aim of the project was to ensure both whole school and in class practises were effectively encouraging learners to make expected progress and providing them with the correct level of support or challenge wherever appropriate. This was made possible through the completion of the subject monitoring and evaluation procedures in place here at School T and the ways in which our assessment cycle encourages us to act upon identified areas for further improvement. By completing the initial SWOT analysis, we were able to identify a key aspect of mathematical pedagogy that was in need of revitalisation. As a result of liaising with the head teacher and Governors, we were able to ensure that learning was a focus in whole school strategic planning and was at the forefront of resource budgets within the school. Introducing the 3 initiatives: ‘Big Maths’, ‘Times Tables Rockstars’ and ‘J2Blast’ was a creative response to an identified area for improvement. It was desired that these initiatives would ensure effective delivery of times tables and encourage mental maths acquisition in order to improve attainment within Mathematics. These approaches were considered in accordance with the very diverse expectations of the Welsh National Curriculum. 
When reflecting upon the standards in sub section three, ‘Developing and Working with Others’, Figure 5 conveys what we deemed to be most successful: 
	From the outset, we were very careful to make sure that staff members were aware of the processes being carried out and strove to make it known that the approach would not be punitive but would be a collective response to a whole school area for development. As a result of our openness, we believe that people felt at ease and respected enough to remain positive throughout the process. Maintaining a positive team dynamic was complimented by how empowered staff became during the periods of formal change and the level of input they had to the process. Collaboration promoted a culture which was open to learning about the best practise that was observed in other schools. Staff were very welcoming of the opportunity to share their thoughts to timetabling and appreciated the level of regard that was paid to ensuring the initiatives were not implemented without consideration of workload.  
	When analysing sub section four of the National Leadership Standards Documentation, ‘Managing the School’, it seemed clear that due to our cooperation with our headteacher and further stakeholders, we were able to provide evidence for some of the standards 
As a result of completing the expected timetable for subject evaluation, we were able to identify an area for development in Mathematics at School T and use it as a means to drive whole school improvement. During the process, we were fortunate enough to visit a range of different school environments and observe mental maths provision. This meant that we had the opportunity to consider a variety of initiatives whilst ensuring that our choices were appropriate for the.  Throughout the implementation period, we monitored, evaluated and reviewed the quality of delivery and the range of experiences that were being provided.  
When paying consideration to the fifth sub section, ‘Securing Accountability’, the following standards (see Figure 7) depict the aspects that we felt were our strongest within this area: 
	Upon reflection, we believe that our most successful sub section within the National Leadership Standards would undoubtedly be ‘Securing Accountability’. We achieved all 6 of the multi-faceted standards and feel they best represent the process completed. We worked directly with the governing body in order to ensure that they could complete their duties in establishing consistent teaching and learning and enabling the school to strive for continuous improvement. When reflecting upon the ways in which we gathered and analysed baseline information, it is clear that we developed an accurate picture of the subject on a whole school basis and communicated it with all stakeholders. We also completed analysis of individual pupil data and used our review of the National Tests and end of year Outcomes/ Levels to inform our intervention choices and to set appropriate targets which are based upon our continuous high expectations. Furthermore, throughout the implementation of the new approaches, we ensured that staff were provided with training and opportunities to discuss any questions they may have. During this stage of the process, individual and whole school staff accountability had to be established in order for the implementation of all 3 initiatives to be successful. Interim reviews were also completed in order to identify additional training needs and to share elements of best practise.   
	When analysing the final sub section of the National Leadership Standards Documentation, ‘Strengthening Community Focus’, we felt that the aspects detailed in Figure 8 were ones which could be formally evidenced: 
It is undeniable that the level of success of our chosen interventions very much depended upon our ability to form an effective working dynamic with all stakeholders. We worked very hard to ensure that the project promoted inclusivity and feel that the partnerships we built were crucial to the overall progress made within the final baseline. Being afforded the opportunity to visit other schools encouraged us to observe many different approaches to mental maths and gave us an insight to the impact best practise can have upon individual pupil and whole school progress. By the end of our review process, it was evident that the partnerships we had forged with parents, guardians and carers, in addition to the excellent staff we have here at School T, created a united perspective which was driven by a common purpose – a desire to establish the best possible provision and promote opportunities in which all pupils could succeed.
When reflecting upon the review above, it is evident that our project has provided a plethora of evidence against the National Leadership Standards. As a result of completing this evaluation therefore, we also feel that we have a greater understanding of the expectations for leadership on a National Level which will prove invaluable when continuing our coordination of Mathematics here at School T.