KS2

5 Apr 2016

NPQML Updated

Teachwell Teaching and Learning Cross-Curricular, Education Policy, KS1, KS2, Professional Development, Subjects 1

It’s a year since I completed my NPQML and wrote this piece about passing it. With hindsight, there are things that I would want to include, change or emphasise differently.

Well after 18 months and much blood, sweat and (no not tears but maybe frustration!!), I finally got the results of my NPQML and yes I passed!! I am so happy not just because I got it but also because the way I did.

As the newly appointed history subject lead I had decided it would be a good idea that I should assess the current and new curriculum to ensure that we were compliant. So far so good and work I would be doing anyway.

As the course started the head asked if I could take on geography as well as there was no-one who was in charge and quite frankly we were due Ofsted! So it was the two subjects!

As I delved into the project and analysed every medium term plan and lesson in history to see what the curriculum coverage was, I was quite astounded how poor it was. The authors of the schemes expected schools to check coverage (primary teachers be aware of this – there is always a clause in them!) and schools assumed that the authors and publishers had.I think the move from the National Curriculum to QCA, which exemplified the units was one that resulted in many teachers only teaching QCA. Ditto with the Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. While these were meant to provide guidance, they was always scope for moving away from them and even follow a different model, but capacity in primary schools was and is an issue.

Come December; it was evident that we would really only be able to keep one unit of history and two of geography as they were. Many others could be kept as long as they were changed in line with the new objectives. However many, mostly fluffy topics and units, had to just go. There was no merit in them, and I had to be the person delivering the message. The rush for schemes of work which were cross-curricular or thematic left one major issue for younger teachers – an almost complete divorce from the National Curriculum. While there was only the LCP when I was training as an alternative, the proliferation of schemes of work that were not focused and shoehorned lots of objectives into single lessons was rife. There are times when genuinely it is possible to teach more than one objective in a lesson, but if we are talking several, from different curriculum areas, then I would question what is being learned in that lesson. Also, the pick and mix approach to schemes of work meant that it was really not clear what was being covered where.

It was a baptism of fire, and it taught me a lot:

a) Know your stuff – going through the curriculum maps and plans was needed, so I knew what had to change and why. I would reiterate that change for the sake of change is pointless and has occurred far too many times already in the system. Some would argue that the National Curriculum 2014 was also such a change, but I think it needs to be seen in the wider context of changes being made to curriculums in many countries across the world. We will have to make changes to the curriculum periodically, but there are some real lessons that need to be learned here. Are there enough teachers who are leading a subject that know it well enough to assess a scheme of work? Should schools look to hire people with backgrounds in a range of subjects? Should this also be a feature of teacher training?

Primary teaching lays the foundations, and we should aim to get it right as much as possible first time. Leaving children with misconceptions and errors is not fair. But neither is it fair that subject knowledge and the need to improve it isn’t a higher priority. I don’t want to go into all the reasons why education fads have arisen, and silver bullets deemed necessary. It’s time we had the courage to step away from that. We can not afford to have teachers who are given no training regularly in all aspects of the curriculum they are teaching. We need to give them time to do the research and be up to date. It’s not going to happen by itself. Furthermore, performance management needs to stop having whole school priorities on them. It should be a given that we are contributing to those. It needs instead to be laser focused on teachers strengths and weaknesses and how they can improve. It also needs to support the development of subject leaders in a more systematic way.

b) Expect resistance and criticism – but only act on either if there is justification for it. I changed things because it was best for the children not what was best for me. (Big Tip – send out PDF’s and ask for written feedback if you think there will be someone playing tricks at the expense of others!!).

I was in a position where I was introducing a statutory curriculum, but not everyone who is doing their NPQML will be. What I would say regarding a project is I think the idea of being innovators is wrong, unless we want to continue to go from fad to fad, silver bullet to silver bullet.

Problem solvers who can be innovative is another matter. This requires the ability to spot issues, what is causing them, evaluate what has been tried already, why it did not work and what else it out there.

The move to marking with multiple coloured pens is a prime example here. Feedback morphed into marking morphed into in-depth marking morphed into thorough marking all the time. In retrospect, why is it that teachers like myself who had good results and did mark consistently, and when necessary, in depth, have to change? Even those who did struggle with marking, was this the change that was needed? If anything, only the level of marking changed, not people’s habits. If there was an issue with marking at my previous school, it wasn’t a whole school issue.

The NPQML talks about impact but ‘the greater the change, the greater the impact’ does not hold true. Whole scale change where tweaking will do will understandably lead to resentment.

c) Be positive, research all options and think of everyone’s needs. – I created a curriculum map for history and geography with links to other subjects. The other subject leaders couldn’t do the same so I got a scheme that would work for all.

I was selfish at first and thought about what I could handle and not others. I created a fabulous history curriculum which included all the objectives from the new National Curriculum and gave teachers lots of scope to decide on the specifics and even a choice of units in some cases.

It went down like a lead balloon. Some teachers were a bit panicked about it.

Not enough of the teachers had the experience or expertise to run with such an overview. I was gutted, but I should have asked before putting the time in what teachers would have preferred – a scheme or something more open-ended.

d) Expect projects to get bigger. – I ended up the new national curriculum coordinator!!

It was clear that what was needed and our capacity to deliver it did not match but some people only needed some guidance to do their bit. Such a significant change does require one person to oversee it though to make sure that everyone is not pulling in different directions.

e) Moaners – they will always be there – see b). This was a statutory change not me implementing a fad. There is a difference.

With all the caveats above. However, there are people who will moan for the sake of moaning. I think it’s fair as a middle leader to go higher up if it is seriously a problem. I do think a shift in power can sometimes cause this. It can be easier to be promoted elsewhere than in the same workplace for this reason.

f) Lead by example and share – show what is possible and make templates of anything you can. I would have liked more feedback but asking others for their ideas was important whether they shared or not. Also trial changes first yourself and be honest about what is working and what isn’t.

One of the realities here is that there was no point in reinventing the wheel when it comes to resources. Some people just needed a starting point, and they were off. I can not extol the virtues of trialling enough – it throws up issues that can be dealt with the least impact. And yes I was lucky that my year group partner was open minded and willing to move to the new curriculum early.

g) Be bold!! – I saw curriculum maps on The Key and quite frankly thought ours were as good. I sent them off and they agreed!

That was a high point as was the praise we all received by the school’s improvement advisors. It also meant we were able to help others both in and out of the city and county.

If anyone is doing the NPQML and needs an example (we weren’t given one!!) then I will gladly share! Just contact me via the original post that was published on the Staffrm website.

N.B.: Some school emails do not allow me to share so could you give me an alternate (preferably Gmail address).

5 Apr 2016

Behaviour Management: Shying Away from the Issues?

Teachwell Behaviour, Political Parties Discipline, KS1, KS2, KS3, Methods, Primary School, Secondary School, SLT, Teachers, Teaching Assistants, Unions 0

On behaviour management, it is fair to say that the Labour Party has left the debate on discipline in schools to the Conservatives. We need to pull back and have a real discussion. Lucy Powell has a real opportunity here to tackle the issue of discipline in our schools and redefine Labour Policy on it. So what do I feel she needs to address?

The association of left-wing teachers with poor discipline.

The idea that left-wing thinking requires permissive discipline in schools needs to be rejected. This does not mean that the shadow secretary of state needs to ‘get tough’, but she does need to think of the real cost to teachers, pupils and schools. Call them reasons or excuses, but either way the education of thousands of pupils is affected on a daily basis by a doctrinal belief that children are not for responsible for their actions. How is it acceptable that working class children have their life chances affected by the ideological stances of their middle class teachers?

Personally I feel that a start would be to actually engage with teachers who support the Labour Party and find out, rather than assume, what they think and what their experiences have actually been. I can accept being in the minority in my views but I cannot accept a situation where no one in my party is even bothering to find out if I am in the minority!!

Poor discipline in the classroom

What is the impact of disruption on the poorest? How many lessons do they miss? How many classes have to be evacuated? What are the solutions that local authorities suggest and how effective are they?

If Labour want to transfer power back to the LEAs if they get elected ,then so be it. However, to pretend that the training and solutions provided to classroom teachers was adequate in the past is again to ignore reality. Only 3 months ago, I was told of the Head of the Behaviour Support Team telling a Head Teacher that her staff needed to become more resilient to the verbal and physical abuse they faced. Is this good enough? I do not claim that this is mirrored across LEAs in the country, but in my own experience LEA advisors have been hippy idealists still peddling theories and ideas from the 1970s, without revision or indeed any kind of analysis as to the weaknesses of their approach.

This particular Head Teacher is now off with stress, the deputy has left and the school is in a state of low level chaos. Meanwhile, nothing has changed for the teachers and there are no solutions for them. Also remember there are vulnerable children in those classrooms who are not behaving poorly and they have to come into school and watch members of staff being abused. How is this an acceptable state of affairs?

We need fairness in our dealings with children – there is nothing left wing about assuming that the child with the greatest behaviour problems needs the most attention from the class teacher.

Research

An evaluation of current practices is needed and I believe it is the Labour Party who needs to do it. What works and what doesn’t? I am not interested in seeing a shadow secretary of state being the mouthpiece of ideologues or those with vested interests in particular modes of behaviour management. I want to see her create her own views based on the experiences of teachers and parents. Should we institute nurture groups in schools with the explicit goal of creating dependency (in order to create independence it would seem yet I have seen very little of the latter and a lot of the former) when the evidence from psychology points to developing better relationships between child and parent?

Another issue that troubles me greatly is that these groups are targeted at the most vulnerable and yet no long term study exists as to its impact. Intervening in emotional and mental health issues simply cannot be left to those with vested interests in particular types of behaviour management

The Way Forward?

Lucy Powell has a real opportunity to critique and revise Labour’s education policy and solutions to the issues of behaviour management. It would be a tragic waste if, yet again, assumptions trump experience and reality in our stated policy positions.

This post was originally published on the Labour Teachers website.

9 Feb 2016

Independent Writing and Independent Moderators

Teachwell Assessment, Education Policy Accountability, KS1, KS2, Primary School, Teachers 12

The teacher assessment writing exemplification materials for KS1 and KS2 have finally been released. As Michael Tidd points out in his blog, there are already questions about the extent to which the writing judged will be truly independent. In fact, it could be argued that writing in KS2 which has been planned and drafted over several sessions will have had much teacher input, feedback and corrections by the teacher. This is clearly not the same as independent writing.

As Tidd states, it is simply not as clear as previous guidance that explicitly stated the first unedited draft needed to be assessed. The old timed writing tests allowed for planning and editing, this is a far cry from teacher assessment of pieces of writing from across the year. It is even further from the idea that the pieces assessed will have been planned and drafted over several days. Maybe I’m wrong here, but surely the problems with controlled assessment will apply here. Which makes it even more ridiculous because no sooner has this practice ended in secondary, we are allowing it in primary!

The maladministration guidelines for moderators state they have to report the following:

a concern regarding the TA evidence and processes within the school
lack of independent work
changes to TA judgements by school staff to influence school assessment outcomes
a concern about the pattern of attainment

Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/2016-key-stage-1-assessment-and-reporting-arrangements-ara/section-8-teacher-assessment

Maladministration is further explained in the document which is used by those investigating as:

could lead to results and/or outcomes that don’t reflect pupils’ unaided work or actual abilities

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/key-stage-1-and-2-maladministration-investigation-procedures/key-stage-1-and-2-maladministration-investigation-procedures#definitions

This makes it clear that the results should reflect what the pupils are able to do without any help or support. This means that if the pieces used for teacher assessment are heavily scaffolded or include teacher feedback which changes the results, then the school is on shaky ground.

However, this will not deter schools who are desperate to avoid an inadequate rating from taking desperate measures and hoping they are not moderated. Local authorities moderate around 25% of schools and the moderation arrangements of free schools and academies are not really robust, given that they will be paying for someone to do the moderating. The reality is that it is quite easy to pay for the moderators who turn a blind eye rather than those who will report maladministration, especially if you are a school doing the maladministration on purpose!!

The DfE do need to clarify what can constitute an assessment piece. As much as some dislike the idea of cold, hot and lukewarm writes, the lukewarm write is children writing independently in a genre they have been previously taught. This gives the children a fair chance at getting the features correct as well as previous feedback to draw on. Guidelines would need to state how far apart it would need to be – so three weeks between the hot and lukewarm writes, but it would ensure a bit more integrity in the process.

Also, while in theory, allowing schools to select the pieces of writing sounds great regarding autonomy, in reality, it will lead to much distorting of data.

The exact number of fiction and non-fiction pieces of writing and types should be outlined. For example:

In KS1: One short story, one longer story, one poem, one recount and one non-fiction report, should suffice.

In KS2: two stories – one short, one long, two non-fiction reports – one chronological, one non-chronological, two types of poems (I don’t know enough about poems to decide which would be best here), one persuasive letter. (I am not persuaded (pun intended) by the idea of assessing posters to determine writing standards in Key Stages 1 and 2.) All of these types of writing are already taught in Years 3 – 5.

The cons of this approach would include:

less autonomy for teachers/schools.
more cross-curricular writing being used in assessments.
the question of independent ideas in writing.

However, I do think the emphasis on novel ideas is massively overrated in primary school. Most of us simply are not going to be writing prose and don’t need to either. I’m sure there will be many English teachers who disagree with this, and I am happy to stand corrected.

Even withstanding such a criticism, I would say that much more guidance and clarity is needed. There is a trade-off between autonomy of schools and reliability of results here. If we are going to assess children nationally, then the least we can do is make sure the arrangements are clearly understood, uniform and provide us with the information we are seeking.

In addition, we need moderators who are independent of schools, and therefore will report maladministration and take it seriously. It would require that more schools are moderated – mini-moderations during the year as well as full on ones at the end of a sample of schools. This is the only way to enable the system to set itself right again. If Local Authorities are paid by the state and Academies/Free Schools pay for the service, I don’t see why an independent body of moderators should not exist.

We must learn from the problems that have plagued Ofsted, but this may be a better means of supporting schools and the education system as a whole, as well as getting rid of some poor practice out there.

In the end, though, all children deserve to taught well enough to be literate and be able to communicate through writing. This should neither be distorted because of high stakes nor should it be left on the off chance that maladministration is reported.