Strategic curriculum leadership phase 3: what’s been learned?

This post, the third of three, details the process carried out to reform the curriculum upon taking up my Headship back in July 2018.  Every school’s needs are different so it is important to set the process I carried out into context.  The school I took over was judged as requires improvement in March 2017.  Between then and my appointment, there was a time of leadership instability.  Initial visits to the school revealed that there was a lack of any curriculum leadership – no subject overviews, no progression across the key stage and no shared understanding of how any subject should be taught.

In the first part of this series, I set out the thinking about the big picture of curriculum design and this can be summarised with three key insights:

  1. Subject leaders need to do the thinking themselves.  The value is in leaders enacting the process and learning along the way, not in buying in a commercial curriculum that is not tailored the school’s needs.
  2. The curriculum is the progress model.  If children are keeping pace with a curriculum that increases in complexity, then they are making progress.
  3. Clarify the desired outcome for each unit of work.  With periodic outcomes in mind for each unit of work, it is far easier to set children up for success in producing purposeful high quality work.

In the second  part of this series, I detailed the components of medium plans and explained the decision to write these for teachers to ease workload and to ensure that curriculum intent is enacted.


Strategic curriculum leadership 

Phase 3: What has been learned?


Senior leaders and teachers need to know what children have learned because this is the only true measure of how effective a curriculum is.  Some subjects are assessed more than others so for the purposes of this process, I’m referring to non core subjects that are not assessed in the same way as English and maths.

I’d go one step further in defining the success of a curriculum.  We must focus on the children that are most disadvantaged in any cohort.  If they are are not learning what we intend, then we’re not succeeding.  The learning of these children is the real measure of how successful a school is.

I’m proposing a set of indicators that can be used to judge the effectiveness of a curriculum.  These are not formal assessments but when looked at in conjunction with one another can give us an idea of the extent to which the curriculum has been learned.

Low stakes testing 

Regular opportunities for children to recall what they have learned serves the purpose of signposting what they do and do not understand as well as reinforcing memories making use of the testing effect.  These can take the form of a review of previous learning in each lesson, a multiple choice quiz dropped in at any point in the sequence of learning or a short answer quiz used in the same way.  Cursory glances over children’s responses, particularly those of the most disadvantaged, will reveal what has been understood and what has been misunderstood.

Vocabulary check

If medium plans stipulate the key vocabulary that children are to learn in a unit of work, then checking children’s understanding of those words are asking children to use them in context is useful.  A great way to do this can be in conversation with a sample of children, perhaps with their books in front of them, perhaps not.

Composite end task

The high quality piece of work that children produce as a result of the work done in that unit, although not independent, can nonetheless add to the bigger picture of what children do and do not understand.  After all, if, despite the scaffolding and support, children still misrepresent key ideas, we know that they have not fully understood them.

Reading comprehension

If children have developed a good schema over a unit of work, then their general knowledge will have been broadened.  Considering that most reading comprehension can arguable be a measure of knowledge of a subject, one option to judge how much children have understood is to provide some reading material around the topic that has been learned to see if they can answer a range of comprehension questions.

When?

Some of these indicators can be monitored during or at the end of a unit of work but if learning can be defined in a change in long term memory, perhaps we need to look at the indicators away from the point of teaching, for example in the weeks after a unit of work has been completed.


So what?

These possibilities can give leaders and teachers a good idea of what has been learned and what has not.  The important part of this process though is what we then do with that information. If we do not act on the information gathered, there is no point gathering it in the first place.  Plainly, if we have spent a chunk of curriculum time on teaching a particular unit of work and children have not understood it all, the rest of the carefully sequenced curriculum can fall down.  Concepts that have not been remembered well can be interleaved into the reviews of previous learning during lessons in the next unit of work.  However, if it is an understanding issue, a couple of lessons might need editing and reteaching, perhaps at the beginning of the next unit of work.

The other equally important action from judging the effectiveness of the curriculum is to adapt to make it more effective for the next cohort.  If there is a pattern of children misunderstanding a particular component of a unit of work, then perhaps the way that component has been taught needs to be adapted.  Leaders may even need to cut some of the content because too much had been planned, or add to the content if it came up short.  The sequence may need to be altered after teachers find that a different way made more sense.  Through the course of teaching the unit, teachers may have found better tasks, photos, sources, video clips than were originally included in the plans and so adapting the plan upon reviewing the extent to which children have learned the intent is crucial to give the next cohort an even better chance of learning and retaining what has been set out.

In summary, monitoring these indicators should result in the edition of future plans for that particular class as well as the plans to be used for children in the future.

Leave a comment

Filed under CPD, Curriculum, leadership, Memory

Strategic curriculum leadership phase 2: the detail

This post, the second of three, details the process carried out to reform the curriculum upon taking up my Headship back in July 2018.  Every school’s needs are different so it is important to set the process I carried out into context.  The school I took over was judged as requires improvement in March 2017.  Between then and my appointment, there was a time of leadership instability.  Initial visits to the school revealed that there was a lack of any curriculum leadership – no subject overviews, no progression across the key stage and no shared understanding of how any subject should be taught.

In the first part of this series, I set out the thinking about the big picture of curriculum design and this can be summarised with three key insights:

  1. Subject leaders need to do the thinking themselves.  The value is in leaders enacting the process and learning along the way, not in buying in a commercial curriculum that is not tailored the school’s needs.
  2. The curriculum is the progress model.  If children are keeping pace with a curriculum that increases in complexity, then they are making progress.
  3. Clarify the desired outcome for each unit of work.  With periodic outcomes in mind for each unit of work, it is far easier to set children up for success in producing purposeful high quality work.

Once the big picture had been set out, it was time to focus on the details.


Strategic curriculum leadership 

Phase 2: The details


In researching other schools’ curricula, it seemed that many stopped at the big picture and handed over responsibility to teachers to create medium term plans.  This bothered me for two reasons.  The first is the workload associated with writing medium term plans because doing this well requires significant expertise and plenty of time.  If neither are afforded, then we are left with teachers trawling search engines for tasks to do which are then thrown together.  Doing the work to a high enough standard to enact the intended curriculum is not something that a typical primary subject leader, not remunerated specifically for the responsibility nor usually with the knowledge and experience necessary, can be morally expected to do.  The second reason that handing over subject overviews for subject leaders to write medium term plans from bothered me was because of the inevitable breakdown in cohesion.  All the care invested in the content and sequencing choices for each subject could easily be lost.

The resultant decision was to provide detailed medium term plans for teachers for every unit of work in order to increase the likelihood that the intended curriculum became the enacted curriculum as well as to eliminate unnecessary workload.  With so many plans to write and now beginning to train others with the right expertise, a number of criteria were needed to ensure that there was sufficient detail for teachers.

Components that build to the composite end piece of work

Medium term plans are not divided into lessons, they are divided in to components – chunks of understanding that accumulate to enable children to produce that high quality end piece.  Some components may take a couple of lessons for children to master, while some lessons could provide children with the chance to develop more than one component.  The important idea here is that lessons are the wrong unit of measurement.  Teachers need to exercise autonomy in how much time they spend developing each component because splitting the sequence up into lessons can encourage coverage rather than learning.

Each unit of work has a sequence of learning that builds towards a high quality end result.  We frame these as questions that children should be able to answer once the work has been completed.  By setting out what exactly children need to be able to articulate, it allows those writing the plans to consider different ways in which that can be achieved.

Deliberate vocabulary development

With a good overview of the content of a unit of work and where it fits in to the overall curriculum, choosing target vocabulary that children simply must understand serves two purposes.  The first is to ensure that teachers focus vocabulary instruction on that which will contribute most to understanding the key concepts of that unit.  Those with well developed subject knowledge are far better placed to make those decisions than if teachers needed to get to grips with the content and do this themselves.  The second purpose is to give leaders a simple way of monitoring the extent to which the curriculum has been learned and understood.  Sampling children’s understanding of the identified key vocabulary is a great starting point for assessment.  This can be picked up from looking at the quality of articulation of vocabulary in children’s work as well as some good old fashioned questioning.  More on this in part 3.

Identification of necessary prior knowledge

Ideally, each unit of work builds on what children have been taught at some point in the past but it is inevitable that children will forget some of what is necessary to understand the more complex ideas that come later on.  Time at the beginning of a unit of work needs to be set aside to assess and reteach what children should have remembered from those previous units.  Many schools will experience children joining school at different times of the year and at different points in the key stage and so deliberately checking and reteaching required prior knowledge helps those children to succeed too.

A thread of key concepts

Early on in the first phase of strategic curriculum leadership, I used the national curriculum and the work of the subject associations to clarify the key concepts for each subject – the big ideas that often recur at increasing levels of complexity in most year groups.  Examples of key concepts are:

  • position on a number line in maths
  • the effect of writing on a reader in English
  • the idea that a force is required to change an object’s movement in science
  • cause, effect and legacy in history
  • scale in geography
  • worship in RE
  • identity in PSHE
  • performance in music
  • invasion strategy in PE
  • depth in art
  • accent and pronunciation in French
  • debugging in computing

These concepts should be regularly revisited and developed iteratively over the span of a curriculum and drawing explicit attention to them in medium term plans helped to focus the plans on addressing them as well as drawing attention to high level curriculum thinking for teachers reading and using them.

What teachers need to know

Teachers’ subject knowledge is vital to them explaining clearly and enthusing children in each subject.  Proper research into the topics being taught takes time but this burden can be eased by the inclusion of key subject knowledge for teachers on each medium term plan.  Experts compiled extracts, links and videos for teachers to access as a bare minimum to teach the unit well.  This has now become a significant strand of our CPD offer.  The experts writing the medium term plans will occasionally come across some content that clearly requires some high quality face to face training too.  When developing our art plans and talking to the teachers that would be teaching each topic, it became clear that a unit on perspective drawing and a unit on op art would never be successful without structured training because the teachers had no experience at all of them.  Working with a local artist, they showed our teachers how execute certain artistic techniques and as a result, we had far more confident teachers and excellent pieces of art.

Skeleton presentations for teachers

Teachers would need to take the medium term plans that have been written and turn them into what children will see in each lesson.  However this is another example of a key moment when all the careful thinking about curriculum design can go wrong.  It is very easy now to find published presentations, some free and some needing subscription, with a quick online search.  The quality is variable and so is the relevance.  Choosing the right models, images pictures and video clips to show children can be time consuming when done properly.  For this reason, the plan is for those with the time and expertise to source these visuals and compile them for teachers into presentations.  Teachers will be free to use these if they wish and welcome to add to or improve them.

A key consideration throughout all this work is striking the right balance between prescription and autonomy.  Leaning too far towards prescription may ease workload but remove a lot of teacher choice about what is covered and when.  Leaning too far towards autonomy may give teachers more choice but increase their workload and result in a loss of cohesion.  For this reason, the medium term plans that we wrote detail what children need to know, understand and remember.  Ideas are provided for how teachers might achieve that but it is here that teachers have autonomy to do different things.  These decisions are guided by our teaching and learning guidance about what makes great teaching.

In the third part of this series, I describe the information that we gather that informs us of how well the curriculum is being learned and then what we do with that information.

Leave a comment

Filed under CPD, Curriculum, leadership, Memory

Strategic curriculum leadership phase 1: the big picture

Context

This post, the first of three, details the process carried out to reform the curriculum upon taking up my Headship back in July 2018.  Every school’s needs are different so it is important to set the process I carried out into context.  The school I took over was judged as requires improvement in March 2017.  Between then and my appointment, there was a time of leadership instability.  Initial visits to the school revealed that there was a lack of any curriculum leadership – no subject overviews, no progression across the key stage and no shared understanding of how any subject should be taught.


Strategic curriculum leadership 

Phase 1: The big picture


Curriculum design principles

The first task was to settle upon a set of principles to guide any decision making on curriculum choices.  Dylan Wiliam’s Principled Curriculum Design was incredibly useful here and I settled on the following:

If the circumstances were different, for example inheriting an established senior leadership team, then this would have ideally been done in collaboration with other leaders.  In this case, working with colleagues external to the school to challenge my thinking was the only option to address the urgency of change due to having a very small and new to post senior leadership team.

Subject overviews

The national curriculum was the necessary first port of call for subject specifics.  This served two purposes.  The first was to sequence the content across KS2 (we’re a junior school).  Some subjects were more straightforward to sequence, for example history is broadly chronological from year 3 to year 6.  The second purpose was to determine the key concepts that threaded through the key stage – the big ideas that children ought to leave in Y6 with a thorough knowledge of.  I checked in against the curriculum design principles at this point to ensure that what had been arranged met the conditions for a great curriculum.  Carrying out this work and discussing progress with others in different schools led to the first key insight about curriculum development:

School leaders need to do the thinking themselves.

There are many off the peg curricula for schools to buy.  Doing this is a mistake.  Although there will be many common features, a relevant curriculum looks different for a school in Cornwall than it does for a school in Birmingham city centre because alongside meeting statutory requirements, it must meet the needs of the children in the school and the communities that they live in.

The end result of this phase of strategic curriculum leadership is to have curriculum overviews for each subject where each unit of work’s existence can be justified by answering two simple questions:

  1. Why this?
  2. Why now?

The first question relates to the content choice.  Much of this is driven by the national curriculum but there will be some that is not.  Consideration also needs to be given to the type of content and the role it play in the bigger picture of what it means to have a deep understanding of each subject.  If the content is hierarchical, then the acquisition of knowledge further down the line will be dependent upon it.  For example, children need to know how to multiply and divide by powers of 10 before they can convert between different units of measurement.  The choice of content can be made for a few main reasons:

  • it is in the national curriculum,
  • it is not in the national curriculum but nonetheless interesting and therefore worth teaching and
  • it is a necessary component to develop a larger composite schema at some point in the future.

Alternatively, if the content is cumulative, it serves a purpose to build a broader understanding of the subject as a whole but other units may be dependent upon it.  For example, the KS2 history national curriculum stipulates the study of an aspect or theme in British history that extends pupils’ chronological knowledge beyond 1066, but the decision on which aspect or theme could stand independent of the rest of the history content.  Swapping it out with another aspect or theme may not affect the curriculum as a whole.  Leaders’ choice of content should be driven by the school’s local context.  For example, an estate near my school has roads named after aircraft and is called the Bomber Estate, hence our choice to include a unit on the role that that the Battle of Britain played in WWII.

The second question (Why now?) relates to the order in which the subject content is arranged.  With the national curriculum stipulating that the subject content needs to be learned by the end of the key stage (despite for some subjects being organised by year group), mapping out the order of units of work across the key stage by terms or half terms needs deliberate thought.  Some concepts may suit a particular phase but each decision about where in the key stage a unit of work fits should include how it builds on what children already know and how this unit contributes to a more sophisticated understanding further down the line.  This exemplifies the second key insight about curriculum development:

The curriculum is the progress model.

If the curriculum has been designed well enough, with good content choices arranged in a logical order, then its gets progressively harder year on year.  Therefore, just by keeping up with the expectations of the curriculum, children will be making progress.

There are some decisions to be made about links across subjects at this stage of curriculum planning.  Christine Counsell words this memorably as crazy cross curricularity vs intelligent interdisciplinarity.  An example of crazy cross curricularity would be forcing links between subjects to adhere to a topic theme.  I chose to implement subjects as individual disciplines, making links where they naturally arise.  I also took it a step further in an attempt to give children multiple opportunities to interact with subject content across the key stage.  It was originally rather tempting to  to fit those natural links together in the same term, for example doing some Egyptian themed art work in the same term and year group as the Egyptian history unit.  Instead, these links are spaced out so that after children have learned about Ancient Egyptian history in the summer of year 3, they learn about ancient Egyptian art in the Autumn of year 4.  Teachers can use this opportunity to encourage children to recall what they learned about Ancient Egypt as well as adding a layer of understanding to their general knowledge with the art unit.  Trips were planned in the same way.  By moving them out of the term or half term where the unit of work was being taught, we increased the frequency of interaction with the content with the goal of making it more memorable over time.

Composite tasks for each unit of work

The ‘Why this?  Why now?’ consideration was also applied to the sequence of learning in each unit of work.  In researching different schools’ curricula before embarking on this work, I was surprised to see how common it was for leaders to provide teachers with titles for units of work followed by little more than statements copied and pasted from the national curriculum.  If teachers are expected to write medium term plans from subject overviews, how can the curriculum be deliberately built over key stages?  It is because of this that our subject overviews include a sequence of learning for that half term – key components that children need to learn about in order to learn what is required in the national curriculum.  After writing a few of these in conjunction with colleagues from other schools, it led to the third key insight about curriculum development:

Clarify the desired outcome for each unit of work first.

Sequences of learning can then be sketched out to build towards these end points.  Each component in the sequence of learning contributes to children being able to produce a high quality piece of work at the end of each unit.

This part of the process was particularly interesting and the outcome was a good idea of the end product for each unit of work in every subject.  They take two forms.  The first is an authentic cross curricular piece of writing.  We stipulated the purpose based on the English curriculum, for example at the end of a Y3 science unit of work on rocks and soils, children would write to inform about the different rocks and soils with illustrated examples.  The second form of end product is subject specific, for example a scientific enquiry into electrical circuits or a two point perspective drawing.  For some units of work, we looked for a combination, such as a watercolour painting of Japanese cherry blossom with an accompanying written piece explaining the artistic decision making.

These pieces of work are not intended to be independent  and as such they are not there for assessment.   They are there for two reasons.  The first is that producing work of high quality as a result of the build up of learning over a period of time is a great experience for children.  They can see that what they do lesson by lesson is going somewhere.  Success breeds motivation too.  The second reason is that the quality of this work, particularly from our most vulnerable children, provides us with feedback about how well the curriculum has been implemented.  We take a good look at the pieces of work that have been produced alongside professional conversations and as a result, make adjustments to the sequences of learning in order to increase the likelihood that the next cohort produce work that is even better.  Pieces of work become models of excellence for future cohorts.

With a clear idea of what the end goal is, leaders can make far better decisions about content choices and how they are sequenced over a unit of work to best enable all children to be able to produce high quality work.  These sequences form the basis of medium term plans which are written for teachers.  The rationale behind providing detailed medium term plans for teachers is described in the next post.

 

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under CPD, Curriculum, leadership, Memory

What makes a good reading strategy?

When it comes to a school’s curriculum, reading is first among equals. Any reading strategy must be driven by what it is that the school’s curriculum seeks to achieve. It’s hard to argue with intent such as fostering a love of books, reading and language and access to great children’s literature, both physically through a well-stocked library and intellectually through great teaching.  To achieve that, a strategy should include the following.

Address phonics and fluency needs quickly

Without adequate knowledge of phonics and skill in decoding, segmenting and blending, children will not be able to crack the code of written English that will enable them to experience the joy of books. Children need a systematic approach to learning the phonetic code from the first day of Reception. Where children are older and have not yet mastered this, schools need rigorous screening processes to identify gaps and teach them until children are fluent. Where children are in the process of systematically growing their knowledge of the phonetic code, they’ll need phonetically decodable books to practise reading with success. Blending the code into words and fluently reading sentences must also be deliberately practised for children to master the mechanics of reading.

Fluency is about more than speedily translating code into sound though. The inflections and emphases that are part of quality spoken language must also be learned and applied to by children when they read independently. When children know typical patterns of prosody and can read with appropriate expression, they are far more able to extract meaning from text than if the reading is robotic.

Provide a rich diet of literature and language

The books that form the reading curriculum will make or break a reading strategy. Real page turners with great story lines will make learning to read a pleasure and there are many decisions for school leaders to make. There needs to be a good blend of modern and classic fiction, a variety of authors beyond the mainstream or well-known and these titles need to be supplemented with related fiction and non-fiction. Great non-fiction helps children to pick up general knowledge which in turn helps them to make sense of the content in the fiction – this link can be powerful. A rich diet of language should also include great picture books and great poetry too. It is not only the literature that needs a high profile but language itself. Celebrating language through modelling interest in words and turns of phrases draws attention to language and will more likely result in children mimicking that interest. Song lyrics and rhetoric are great vehicles for this
too. Many children sing along to words in songs without necessarily thinking about their meaning but those words are often so carefully chosen for effect that they are well worth examining in detail.

Oral language comprehension

The simple view of reading explains the relationship between decoding and comprehension and there is much research to show that working on oral language comprehension is effective in improving reading comprehension, not least the York Reading for Meaning Project. This can be as simple as reading aloud or telling children a story. Capture their interest. Retell it in different ways. At this point, it is important for teachers to know what children have understood but by asking questions, all we really know is whether they are capable of comprehending, not whether they actually comprehend independent of us. Before any specific questioning, it would be useful to get an idea of what they have understood by asking them to tell you broadly about what they’ve just heard.  The decisions they make about what they say reveal what they think is important and you can also judge the accuracy of their literal and inferential comprehension. Difficulty decoding should not be a barrier to children experiencing
and understanding age appropriate texts. Doug Lemov puts this beautifully:

Low readers are often balkanised to reading only lower level texts, fed on a diet of only what’s accessbile to them – they’re consigned to lower standards from the outset by our very efforts to help them.
Lemov (Reading Reconsidered)

Listening to texts and using open questions to prompt discussions ensures that the focus in on language development in a way that is not restricted by poor decoding.

Varied question styles

If the goal of a reading strategy is to ensure that children fully understand what they’re reading when they do so independently, then the questions we ask are important. These questions develop habits of how children think about what they have read. The first layer of open questions that prompt good think about what has been read are Aiden Chambers’ questions in his book Tell me. He proposes four basic questions:

  • Tell me about what you liked.
  • Tell me about what you disliked.
  • Tell me about what puzzled you.
  • Tell me about any connections you noticed.

There are other particularly good questions, such as ‘Tell me about how long the story took to happen,’ which can prompt a great discussion about the passing of time and how we know. For more specific questions, using old SATS questions, keeping the format but changing the context to suit the text that children are reading is a good way to ensure variety whilst still keeping a focus on key indicators of comprehension such as literal and inferential understanding, prediction etc.

Modelling the reader’s thought processes

Reading is an activity that is mostly done in the reader’s head and there are many thought processes that competent readers initiate. This isn’t simply reading the text from beginning to end; reading will be interspersed with commentary, explanation or making links to general knowledge. These frequent pauses for analysis allow the teacher to show children that good readers think while they read in order to achieve an acceptable standard of coherence. As children get older and texts get longer, teachers can’t lead shared reading of the whole text, so by initially earmarking sections that children are likely to misunderstand, shared reading can be focused on addressing misconceptions.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Curriculum, Reading

Leading change and changing how we lead – how we’ll improve sentence construction across the school

We have a well thought out English curriculum and the intent behind it is that children will master the art of speaking and listening as well as the craft of writing. Establishing talk for writing has been pivotal in raising expectations of the quality and quantity of writing expected by teachers and after 10 weeks or so has resulted in a significant improvement in children’s writing.

Something is lacking though. When children write more independently, it is at sentence level upon which the overall quality of the piece relies. Children do not yet have mastery over the science or the art of sentence construction.

In this series of blogs, I’ll document what we’re doing about it, drawing on the EEF’s Putting evidence to work – a school’s guide to implementation, Kotter’s 8 step model for leading change and the Teacher Development Trust’s Developing Great Teaching.

Foundations for good implementation

The first piece of guidance from the EEF is to treat implementation as a process not an event. It is all too easy as a leader to rush into a training session with teachers, hand something out along with instructions and think the job is done. In their review of effective CPD, the Teacher Development Trust’s Developing Great Teaching found that a duration of at least two terms and more likely a year or more is the time needed to secure profound, lasting change. What’s important here is to balance between allowing enough time to prepare for the implementation withoug getting stuck in the planning zone with no action.

The second piece of advice from the EEF is to create a leadership environment and a school climate that is conducive to implementation. This begins with a clear vision and values. At Courthouse, we aim for every child to flourish and this is underpinned by three values: the pursuit of knowledge, doing the right thing and leadership and teamwork. Any change is framed within this thinking. The need for improvement in how we teach sentence construction is driven by our aim for every child to flourish. One way that children can flourish is by ensuring that they gain mastery over the English language, to choose just the right words in the perfect order to put across their point. Our value of the pursuit of knowledge drives the work. Teachers must be experts in language in order to expose children to great sentences then model and explain how to craft them. The habit that we instill in children to pursue knowledge will guide them to thirstily soak up language and savour the well turned phrase.

A climate that balances urgency with trust and support will allow teachers to flourish in their pursuit of shared intent. Kotter’s first step in his model for change is to create urgency. Teachers must feel that unless we do something about children’s sentence construction, they will not master the art of speaking nor the craft of writing so it is our moral imperative to get it right. Leaders’ behaviours and utterances show what they value and so a common language about this whole school priority is vital. Leaders at Courthouse will begin to draw teachers’ attention to sentences not just in English but across the curriculum. We already use my turn, your turn to practise with children succinct complete thoughts turned into vocalised sentences, for children can only write what they can say. Our urgency also comes from assessment. We have just completed two rounds of writing assessment using the comparative judgement process by No More Marking and the resultant insights into quality of writing has sharpened our thinking. Making multiple comparisons between pieces of writing certainly makes patterns across a year group easy to spot. The urgency needed goes beyond our gates. The weekly newsletter already has well crafted sentences from the inspirational people whose names give identity to our classes – a discussion prompt for parents and children over the weekend.

Trust is needed. We have consistent principles but flexible practices when it comes to teaching and teachers are encouraged through day to day conversations to think about the best way to meet the principles for their class in that lesson. Professional risk taking is supported by leaders.

Change driven by one person is dependent on that individual. Kotter’s advice on building a guiding coalition is echoed by the EEF in recommending building leadership capacity. At Courthouse, the curriculum and assessment leader, the English leader and the leader of teaching and learning have important roles to play to model the behaviours desired of teachers, to champion the vision and strategies and to remove barriers to implementation. These early adopters try strategies in advance and iron out any difficulties to make implementation by the majority far smoother. We’ll meet as a group first to take the first small step of clarifying a strategy and trialling it in a small number of classes. When the time comes to roll out the strategies further, there will be a range of voices explaining their experience, what worked well and the pitfalls to avoid.

The foundations for effective implementation are set and the next stage is to explore in more detail how we’re going to turn the identified need into a coherent improvement strategy.

Leave a comment

Filed under leadership, Uncategorized

Success criteria in maths

I vividly recall maths lessons as a child.  I was in the bottom set and I remember a general feeling of bafflement as it appeared to me that others seemed to know what to do while tasks remained a mystery to me.  I don’t remember anything being explained and years later as an NQT, reading the numeracy strategy unit plans, I had a moment of realisation that there were ways of calculating in your head.  In your head!  All I’d known was formal written methods. For everything! What I needed whilst at school was to be let in to the secret of how to do maths.

Continue reading here.

1 Comment

Filed under Curriculum, Maths, Memory

A growing vocabulary is the key to unshackling children’s minds

“The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for.”  Ludwig Wittgenstein

I’ve always been fascinated by the point at which a child with EAL switches from thinking and dreaming in their mother tongue to thinking and dreaming in English.

At that point, they’ll may have a wide enough vocabulary to get by, but take a moment to think of all the situations for which they do not yet have the language.

As teachers, it’s vital that we provide all children with the lexical dexterity to make sense of the world and to communicate their understanding.

Continue reading here.

1 Comment

Filed under Reading