{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01217391304347826, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008695652173913044, 'mean_word_length': 5.188172043010753, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Academic progress in the 16–19 curriculum: some senior staff perceptions of current monitoring systems and operational procedures

In outlining its programme of target-setting for post-16 provision in 1997, the DfEE sought to promote the monitoring of academic progress in order to raise achievement both at institutional level and also at the individual student level. This article, based on research conducted in schools and colleges in North and West Yorkshire, focuses on the latter and examines senior staff perceptions of current monitoring systems and operational procedures. The article gives an overview of the main systems used and how these are adapted to suit the circumstances of a particular institution. The authors suggest that in general the implementation of target-setting has been viewed positively, largely due to the current flexibility for senior staff to adapt whatever system best suits their needs. It recommends that this should be seen as a strength of the current situation and that the introduction of more uniform systems should be avoided if it is at the expense of meaningful procedures adapted to local requirements.