Category Archives: CPD
Moving schools and with more than an eye on headship is sure to get you reflecting. The following posts are what I think about various things, in no particular order. Previous posts were about displays, learning generally, maths and reading. Next up – professional learning.
What should leaders prioritise?
With likely a range of often conflicting priorities, deciding what to work on is tricky. Subject leaders will strive to keep their subject’s nose in front of the rest but ultimately, leaders must be able to zero in on what it is that the children need. Once that is known, leaders can think about what teachers might need to do differently in order for those outcomes for children to be realised. The list of things that teachers (could) do day to day is endless so leaders must be able to judge, through experience or by leaning on research, which of those things are worth pursuing and which need to be jettisoned because they take up our time and mental effort for no significant impact. Research such as that by Hattie is useful but are the interventions described in such research too broad? For example it is obvious that feedback can have a significant impact on learning but only if it’s done well. Consider the difference between these scenarios:
- training on implementing a new feedback policy
- training on providing feedback on persuasive writing
- training on clear teacher explanations
- training on explaining how to add fractions clearly
There is a difference between being research led and research informed. Research should be considered in combination with the needs of children and teachers so that leaders get teachers thinking about effective ways to teach.
This would go some way to ensuring that teachers’ subject and pedagogical knowledge is developed, in line with the Sutton Trust report into what makes great teaching. It’s relatively straight forward to ensure that the focus is on those things, however ensuring the impact is a lot trickier. It makes sense for leaders to have from the outset a very clear idea of what they want that impact to be. Phil Stock’s post on evaluating impact (based on Guskey’s hierarchy of five levels of impact) is very useful here in terms of leaders planning what they want to happen as a result of professional learning and the rest of this post details how one might do that.
Intended impact on outcomes for children
The intended outcomes for children should be set out so that there is no misunderstanding of the standard to be achieved. Using resources like Rising Stars Assessment Bank for maths can help teachers to gather the types of questions that all children will be expected to answer. The same can be done for a unit of work on reading – find or write the questions about a text or texts, including the quality of response that you’d expect in order to demonstrate age related expectations. Something similar can be done for writing. Find or write a piece that would exemplify the standard that you’d expect from children. Whatever the subject, leaders working with teachers to clarify what exactly children will be able to do and what their work will look like is the goal.
Individual questions would serve as criterion based assessment but for reading and maths, these questions could be compiled into an overall unit assessment and a target could be set for all children to achieve in the first phase of a unit of work. Gentile and Lalley, in Standards and Mastery Learning discuss the idea that forgetting is the inevitable consequence of initial learning even if it is to a high standard of say 80%+ . The problem is that for the most vulnerable children, who don’t achieve that initial mastery of the content to anywhere near that standard, forgetting happens more quickly and more completely. If children don’t initially understand to a certain level, their learning over time is far less likely to stick and will make subsequent planned revision not revision at all but a new beginning. Therefore, the expectation of the impact on children of any professional learning simply must be that all children achieve a good standard of initial understanding, whether that is judged as absolute through criterion referenced assessment or by a percentage on a carefully designed test.
Now of course, meeting the standard set on an assessment means nothing unless it is retained or built upon. This initial assessment would not be at the end of the unit of work but part way through. I’d expect, on an end of unit test, higher percentages compared to those that children will have achieved on the initial assessment. This is because that initial assessment will have served to tailor teaching to support those that require further instruction or practice. And I’d expect that intervention to have worked.
To summarise, teachers and leaders first set the assessment and the standard to be achieved. The unit of work is taught until all children can attain the standard, then the unit continues, deepening the understanding of all which is then checked upon at the end of the unit and beyond. The DfE’s Standard for Teachers’ Professional Development (July 2016) identifies the importance of continually evaluating the impact on outcomes for children of changes to practice and so assessments of what children have retained weeks and months after the unit of work are crucial – they ‘ll inform at further tweaks to teaching and professional learning. When there are clear milestones for children’s achievement, the professional learning needs of teachers comes sharply into view.
Intended impact on teachers’ behaviour
Once it has been decided what the intended impact on outcomes for children is, attention needs to be turned what teachers will do in order for children to achieve those outcomes. Such behaviour changes may be desired at the planning stages of a unit of work, for example in the logical sequencing of concepts related to addition and subtraction over a series of lessons. The behaviour changes may be desired during teaching, for example explaining and modelling how to create suspense in a piece of writing. Finally the behaviour changes could be desired after lessons, for example where teachers receive feedback on how children have done by looking at how they have solved addition and subtraction problems in order to amend the sequence of lessons. Another example could be providing feedback on their writing to make it more persuasive either face to face or by writing comments in their books. The key here is that behaviour change is specific to the unit of work. Having said that, leaders must support teachers to think in increasingly principled ways so that over time, principles can be more independently applied to other units of work and subjects. As such, intended changes to behaviour must be iterative and long term, with opportunities to make connections between topics and subjects through coaching and shared planning.
For any behaviour change, teachers must see the outcome. They must see someone doing the things that are expected of them. This live or videoed teaching needs to be deconstructed and then summed up concisely which acts as success criteria for teachers. For example, in a unit of work on place value, desired teachers’ behaviours could include (and this is far from exhaustive; simply to illustrate the point):
- Plan for scaffolds (and their removal) so that all children can partition and recombine numbers fluently and accurately.
- Intervene on the day if a child shows significant misunderstanding of that day’s learning.
- Use concrete manipulatives and pictorial representations to model and explain the concept of place value.
- Co-construct with children success criteria appropriate to the type of leaning objective (open or closed).
Having such success criteria ensures that both leaders and teachers are clear of what is expected in order for the desired impact on children to be realised. It can also be used to focus practices like lesson study and coaching conversations, which are crucial to keep momentum going and embed change.
Intended impact on teachers’ knowledge
If leaders require teachers to develop certain practices, for many there will be a knowledge gap that inhibits such development. The DfE’s Standard for Teachers’ Professional Development identifies the importance of developing theory as well as practice. Subject and pedagogical knowledge, as well as knowledge of curriculum or task design are all vital for teachers to be able to refine aspects of their practice. This could be as straightforward as analysing the types of questions that could be asked to get children thinking deeply about place value before teachers write their own which are appropriate to the year group that they teach. Or it could be ensuring that teachers understand and can articulate the underlying patterns of addition and subtraction in the maths unit coming up. It could even be knowing the texts that children will be using for reading and writing in depth in order for them to dedicate future thinking capacity to pedagogical concerns. By setting out the intended theoretical knowledge to be learned and by providing opportunities to gain that knowledge in ways that do not overly strain workload, leaders can set teachers up for successful changes to practice.
For children to improve based on teachers’ developing subject and pedagogical knowledge, there must be great systems in place that allow such development to happen. Leaders need to be very clear about what it is that they will do to ensure that teachers are supported to act on the advice being given. Some examples include:
- Making senior leaders or subject specialists available for shared planning
- Providing access to a coach (and training for coaches)
- Arranging for staff to access external training
- Ensuring that observations are developmental
- Planning professional learning using Kotter’s change model
These items become success criteria for leaders implementing long term change. They can be self evaluated, of course, but external validation of school culture is valuable here.
The final strand of planning for impact concerns how teachers perceive the professional learning in which they’ll engage. It goes without saying that we’d like teachers to find professional learning not just useful but transformative – a vehicle for improving outcomes for children, personal career development and increasing the school’s stock all at the same time. One can only create the conditions in which another may become motivated and by taking into account what drives people, we can go along way to ensuring a thriving staff culture. Lawrence and Nohria’s 4-Drive model of employee motivation is very useful here, describing four underlying drives:
The drive to acquire and achieve
If staff are confident that the professional learning will lead to them acquiring knowledge, expertise and success, then they are more likely to feel motivated. Professional learning then must appeal to this drive – spelling out the knowledge and status that can be achieved through the planned work and never underestimate the power of distributed leadership, carefully supported, of course.
The drive to bond and belong
The school’s vision is key in keeping everyone focused and pulling in the same direction and this can certainly be reinforced with a common school improvement aim as the focus of professional learning. Finding ways to ensure supportive relationships is crucial. Culture is the result of what we continuously say and do so leading by example in developing good working relationships will go some to making it the social norm. Leaders must also look for and iron out any pockets of resistance that could threaten the desired culture.
The drive to comprehend and challenge
This refers to providing opportunities for staff to overcome challenges and in doing so grow. Setting out each individual’s importance in the school and how they contribute to its success is an example. This is often a long game, with external judgments being made in exam years or in external inspections, so leaders must find quick wins to acknowledge the impact of teachers’ work on the development of the school.
The drive to define and defend
By drawing attention to the good that the professional learning will do not just for the children but in turn for the reputation of the school, we can create a fierce loyalty. If we get our principles right an articulate what we stand for, this momentum can be very beneficial for implementing professional learning.
This is the job of the leader, striving for improvement in outcomes for children whilst developing staff and building a culture of success. Any professional learning has to have clear outcomes and its only then that they can be reliably evaluated and tweaked to inform the next iteration.
One of the parts of the NCETM’s Calculation Guidance for Primary Schools is the ‘Before, Then, Now’ structure for contextualising maths problems for additive reasoning. This is a very useful structure as by using it, children could develop deep understanding of mathematical problems, fluency of number and also language patterns and comprehension.
The first stage is to model telling the story. We cannot take for granted that children, particularly vulnerable children in Key Stage 1, will know or can read the words ‘before’, ‘then’ and ‘now’. Some work needs to be done to explain that this is the order in which events happened. Using a toy bus, or failing that, an appropriate picture of a bus, we would talk through each part of the structure, moving the bus from left to right and modelling the story with small figures:
The child could then retell the story themselves, manipulating the people and the bus to show what is happening. For the first few attempts, the child should get used to the structure but before long we should insist on them using full, accurate sentences, including the correct tense, when they are telling the story.
I have chosen a ten frame to represent the windows on the bus, which enables plenty of opportunity to talk about each stage of the problem in greater depth and to practise manipulating numbers. For example, in the ‘Before’ stage, there were four people on the bus: if the child could manage it, it would be interesting to talk about the number of seats on the bus altogether and the number of empty seats. By doing so, they are practising thinking about number facts to ten and building their fluency with recall of those facts. The task could easily be adapted to use a five frame or a twenty frame.
The next stage could be to tell children a story and while they are listening, they model what is happening with the people and the bus. After each stage, or once we have modelled the whole story, they could retell it themselves. Of course, the adult would only tell the ‘Before’ and the ‘Then’ parts of the story as the child should be expected to finish the story having solved the problem.
When the child is more fluent with the language and they understand the structure of the problems, we can show them how it looks abstractly. For the ‘Before’ part, the child would only record a number – how many on the bus. For the ‘Then’ part, we would need to show the child how to record not only the number of people that got on or off the bus but the appropriate sign too – if three people got on they would write +3 and if two people got off they would write -2. Finally, for the ‘Now’ part, they would need not only the number of people on the bus but the ‘is equal to’ sign before the number. Cue lots of practise telling and listening to stories whilst modelling it and writing the calculation.
A more subtle level of abstraction might be to repeat the same problems but rather than the child modelling them using the bus and people, they could use another manipulative such as multi-link cubes or Numicon. They could also draw a picture of each stage – multiple representations of the same problem provide the opportunity for deeper conceptual understanding.
The scaffolding that the structure and the multiple representations provide allows for some deeper thinking too. In the problems described so far, the unknown has always been the ‘Now’ stage or the whole (as opposed to one of the parts). It is fairly straight forward to make the ‘Then’ stage unknown with a story like this:
This could be modelled by the teacher, who asks the child to look away at the ‘Then’ stage. Starting with ten people on the bus and using a ten frame is a deliberate scaffold – deducing how many people got off the bus is a matter of looking at how many ‘empty seats’ are represented by the empty boxes on the ten frame in the ‘Now’ stage. A progression is to not use a full bus in the ‘Before’ stage – it is another level of difficulty to keep that number in mind and calculate how many got on or off the bus.
Another progression is to make the ‘Before’ stage unknown. The child will need a different strategy to those already explained in order to solve this kind of problem. Then story would have to be started with: ‘Before, there were some people on the bus.’ Of course, the adult would not show the child this with the bus and toy people, but they would show the completed ‘Then’ stage: ‘Then, four people got on the bus.’ Finally, the adult would model moving the bus to the ‘Now’ stage and completing the story: ‘Now, there are eleven people on the bus.’ The child would have to keep in mind that four people had got on and now there are eleven, before working backwards. They would have to be shown that if four had got on, then working out how the story started would mean four people getting off the bus. They could be shown to run the story in reverse, ending up with seven people on the bus in the ‘Before’ stage.
This task has the potential to take children from a poor understanding of number facts, calculating and knowledge of problem structures to a much deeper understanding. The familiar context can be used as a scaffold to build fluency and think hard about complex problems with varied unknowns.
Could Reception and Year 1 children solve this problem?
4 + 3 = 2 + □
Of course they could. Here’s how. First children will need to work on their understanding of 7. Using a manipulative for 1:1 correspondence such as multi-link cubes, we can show how the whole of 7 can be made up of two parts (in the first instance, 1 and 6):
It is important to model the language that will help children think clearly when manipulating the cubes: ‘One add six is equal to seven. The parts are one and six and the whole is seven.’ It is equally important to talk about the cubes saying the whole first: ‘ Seven is equal to one add six.’ This will help to prevent the misconception developing that the equals sign means ‘the answer is next’. Then show them how to systematically make seven with other sized parts, talking about the parts and the whole in the same way:
Children should also use the cubes to write calculations. A little modelling of turning the language of ‘Three add four is equal to seven’ into 3 + 4 = 7, followed by plenty of practice, will be exactly what is needed.
Lots of quality talking, as well as using pictorial representations, will develop children’s fluency with number facts. Showing different representations, for example Numicon, could strengthen their conceptual understanding:
Some children will grasp this idea quickly, and some will need more practice to internalise the number facts and recall them more fluently. Those quick graspers can be challenged to think more deeply about the number facts that they are working with. We can start by returning to the multi-link cubes and looking at two facts:
Here, we can model the talk required to think more deeply: ‘Three add four is equal to five add two.’ Children could repeat that task with different facts to 7 before we show them how to write that as 3 + 4 = 5 + 2. When children have practised this and can do it reliably with manipulatives, they could draw a bar model of what is happening:
A further challenge is to present cubes where there is an unknown:
We could model how to talk about this as: ‘One add six is equal to three add something.’ To model how to work out what ‘something’ is equal to, we simply fill the gap with cubes to make the second row equal to seven, then counting the cubes to figure out what ‘something’ is equal to. When children have practised and are becoming more fluent, the cubes could be replaced with bars, at first presented in that way but moving on to children drawing it themselves:
All the while, children could be shown how this looks written down: 1 + 6 = 3 = □. When they have seen the abstract alongside the pictorial and the concrete, we can try starting with the abstract and asking children to represent the problem with cubes or by drawing bars.
The sequence described, over time, should be enough of a scaffold for the vast majority of children to end up being able to solve such problems and in doing so, develop a deep understanding of early number.
The question was on the screen:
One year 6 child said: ‘The empty box is in the middle so you do the inverse. You have to add the numbers together’.
This got me thinking about how children build on their early concepts of number to be able deal with problems like this, which I’ll call ‘empty box problems’.
The underlying pattern of additive reasoning is the relationships between the parts and the whole. Getting children to think and talk about the whole and parts using concrete manipulatives early on should lay the foundations for them to internalise this underlying pattern. Every time children think and talk about number bonds, they can be practising identifying the whole, breaking it into parts and then recombining to make the whole once more.
Alongside talking about the whole and parts, children should begin to generate worded statements whilst manipulating cubes or Numicon, for example. At this point it is important to experiment with rearranging the words in the statement. They should get to know that ‘four add two is equal to six’ and ‘six is equal to four add two’ are statements that are saying the same thing. Some discussion around what is the same and what is different about these two statements would be worthwhile.
When children are then shown how this looks abstractly with numerals and the equals sign, this would hopefully go some way towards avoiding the misconception that the equals sign means that ‘the answer is next’.
In the examples used so far, the whole and each of the parts have been ‘known’. Using the same manipulatives and language patterns, children can be introduced to unknowns. It seems sensible to begin with giving children the parts and using the word ‘something’ to show that the whole is unknown, i.e., four add two is equal to something. Some modelling alongside a clear explanation followed by plenty of practice should see children get used to the language patterns needed to think about the concept with clarity. The next step is to show children the whole and one of the parts, using the word ‘something’ to replace the unknown part. All of this talk and manipulation of objects is intended to support children to develop a concept of additive reasoning where they do not have the misconception that ‘inverse’ means ‘do the opposite’.
More sophisticated additive reasoning is the understanding of the inverse relationship between addition and subtraction. Children need to fully understand that two or more parts can be equal to the whole. From this, they need to internalise the underlying patterns: that Part + Part = Whole and that Whole – Part = Part. From this, they should be able to work out the full range of calculations that represent one bar model. Again, it is important to vary the placement of the = sign.
One more way to get children to think about the whole and the parts is to use bar models for calculation practice rather than simply writing a calculation for children to work out. When done like this, children have to decide what calculation to do to work out the unknown. Children often exhibit misconceptions such as ‘when you subtract, the biggest number goes first’. These can be addressed using the underlying patterns; adding parts together makes the whole and, when you subtract, you always subtract from the whole. When unknowns are introduced, they can be substituted into these basic patterns:
Part + Something = Whole Part + □ = Whole 35 + □ = 72
Something + Part = Whole □ + Part = Whole □ + 35 = 72
Whole – Something = Part Whole – □ = Part 72 – □ = 35
Something – Part = Part □ – Part = Part □ – 35 = 37
Knowing these patterns will help children to able to analyse problem types in order to decide on the calculation needed. An additive reasoning bar model with one unknown generates both an addition statement and a subtraction statement. Showing children empty box problems pictorially, they can talk through the calculations that can be read from the bar model, using the word ‘something’ to represent the unknown. The next step is to show children abstract empty box problems and get them to map it onto a blank bar model. They should be drawing on their knowledge that the whole is equal to the sum of the parts and that when you subtract, you always start with the whole. Eventually, the hope is that the language alone should suffice to work out how to solve empty box problems, with children no longer needing the bars.
Which brings us back to that year 6 child. Of course, children will develop misconceptions as they make sense of what is shown and explained to them. By expecting them to think and talk about additive reasoning in the ways described above, it should go some way to building sound conceptual understanding.
In two previous posts, I thought about the role of vision and culture in getting coaching up and running in schools, and some of the things that coaches might need in preparation for working with their colleagues. In this post, I consider how coaching could fit into a wider CPD program.
A good CPD program is varied. There is varation in content, for example over a term, there might be sessions on Marking and Feedback, SEN, SIMs etc. There is variation in style, for example, some sessions will be more of a lecture style, some will be the catalyst for some action research etc. There is variation in speakers, for example, SLT, Subject Leaders, external experts etc. There is variation in venue, in that meetings are held in different places around school. Coaching certainly adds to the variety of a good CPD program.
The driver for planning a CPD program is the school’s strategic plan. There will already have been a thorough analysis of what it is that the school needs to work on and this could well quickly fill up weekly INSET slots. The danger here is that by having a weekly focus for CPD, coverage is wide but key ideas do not become embedded in practice. One off INSET sessions may not necessarily lead to sustained improvement in teaching. Rather, teachers need to act their way into thinking to adjust habits. This is where coaching can complement traditional models of CPD programs. When an idea is introduced in an INSET session, coaches can foster work on strategies over the next few weeks. This will not always be appropriate, though, and before long, if every session is followed up with coaching, there will be too much going on and we risk losing focus of the main thing – improving teacher quality.
One option, then, is for school leaders to have a clear vision for what it is that makes great teaching – generic strategies or principles that can be tweaked over time. It might be of use to refer to Hattie’s meta-analysis of teaching interventions to inform this thinking. Quality of feedback must surely be on any school’s list of aspects of great teaching and according to Hattie has one of the highest effect sizes. Teacher clarity also ranks highly – this could include quality of explanations and modelling. With clarity of thinking about what makes great teaching, any weekly CPD focus can be alligned to the values already established and then practised in subsequent coaching sessions. This provides direction and reinforces the message that teaching quality matters most.
The model outlined above takes the prevailing conditions of many CPD programs (weekly topics) and uses coaching to add further conditions that we know are more conducive to effective learning – deliberate practice, spaced learning and feedback. This could work. However, I think that our CPD programs should reflect more what we know about effective learning. The weekly topics structure that has been the basis of many schools’ programs for years is essentially massing as opposed to spacing. Massing can work for performance – cramming the night before a test can mean success, but all is forgotten soon after. Similarly, a situation where an idea is introduced in INSET, expected to be seen in upcoming observations and subsequently ticked off, is just the same. Learning and performance are different and spacing is the driver for learning. No matter how effective coaching is, we risk betraying our values and undermining our intended message if those weekly INSET sessions contradict what we know works in learning.
So, spacing and revision could be planned into the CPD program. A massed CPD program, supported through coaching may look a bit like this:
Week 1 – Marking and Feedback in English. (Coaching: Shared marking).
Week 2 – Modelled and Shared Writing. (Coaching: Modelled writing).
Week 3 – Implications of new curriculum in maths. (Coaching: Joint planning).
A spaced program would need a little more consideration and could look like this:
Coaching presents a major change in how schools work and this change needs to be thoughtfully managed in order for it to make the impact on teaching quality that it undoubtedly can. For schools to benefit from coaching, there must already be structures in place. A strong vision and clear communication, shared with integrity by school leaders, will pave the way for deliberate practice and quality coaching conversations to take place. Coaches need to be well prepared and knowledgeable so that we can make the best use of time. They must have a range of strategies to draw upon and like any expert, must expect to practise to be as effective as possible. Coaching must also be part of a wider CPD program that reflects the best of what we know about learning.
In a previous post, I explained the importance of a school’s vision for coaching matching the already established culture. There are a couple of reasons why I think that talking about coaching in those early weeks of the new school, with that carefully planned language, is necessary:
- It gives leaders time to match up staff with coaches while giving them time to settle into a new school / room / role / year group etc.
- It generates a little momentum for when coaching is launched. Think of the busker who scatters his guitar case with a few notes and coins, rather than start with an empty case. This isn’t such a big change – we’ve already started…
- It creates time to work with coaches on their repertoire of strategies before meeting with their colleagues.
At this point, any potential barriers need calling out and possible solutions shared. In Dan and Chip Heath’s book ‘Switch’, they talk about the elephant and rider analogy in managing change. The elephant represents emotion and the rider rationality. The elephant will only go where the rider wants it to if it so chooses. The rider cannot force the elephant to do anything. Unless the rider knows where he wants the elephant to go, they will not end up at the desired destination. To manage change, we need to motivate the elephant and direct the rider. We need to understand what it is about coaching that will motivate our colleagues’ elephants. Selling the expectation that it will lead to being a better teacher is a good starting point. We are motivated by the drive to acquire, to bond, to comprehend and to defend. Coaching can lead us to acquiring skills and knowledge about teaching which can make us better teachers. It can lead us to have quality conversations with our colleagues, helping each other to improve and bond along the way. It can lead us to deeper comprehension about effective teaching. It can reinforce the principle that we do the best that we can for the children that we teach, defending their present and their future.
Motivation without direction is useless so we need the attention to detail that the rider provides. What aspect of teaching are we practising? When will it happen? How will we practise the strategies? Which particular coaching strategies are most approproate for this teacher at this time? These details need planning for carefully because our time is valuable and clarity is what the rider needs. Each coach will need a coaching plan and part of the work with the coaches in September will be putting those together.
Along with motivating the elephant and directing the rider, if we want to arrive at a certain destination, the path needs to be clear. We need to remove any barriers so that we can get there. Time and the various other commitments that teachers have are the metaphorical logs blocking the path and must be removed for coaching to work. To start with, the time issue can be addressed by only asking a small time commitment per week – say half an hour. This half an hour cannot be at lunchtime or at 4.30pm on a Friday as that would diminish the status that we want to create for coaching. We have to provide release time from teaching responsibilities, where appropriate, for this to happen. The half an hour could involve twenty minutes of deliberately practising a strategy in class, followed by a ten minute conversation while someone else covers the class. Short and managaeable.
Practising being a coach
A coach will have a repertoire of support strategies to draw upon to support colleagues. Like any other domain of expertise though, coaches will need to practise their wares in order to be as effective as they can be. There will be a few strategies that a school could identify early on that would yield the best results. Pareto’s principle, or the law of the vital few, is that 80% of the output comes from 20% of the input, that is, a few key strategies could provide the greatest return on improving teacher quality. These key coaching strategies could be:
- Demonstration lessons
- Team teaching
- Quality and timing of feedback
- Coaching conversations
- Shared planning and marking
These strategies will need to be practised, with other coaches playing the role of the teaching colleague. So in the first few weeks of term, coaches could meet regularly to practise getting demonstration lessons as clear as possible. When coaches can do this with automaticity, they can focus more upon the reactions of their colleagues, tailoring what they’re doing to meet their needs better. They can practise the subtleties of team teaching – when to step back, when to model a particular strategy. They can practise giving quality feedback in those brief lulls in lessons that would enable their colleague to listen and act immediately by repeating the focus teaching strategy. They can practise the skillful listening and questioning needed to help a colleague solve a problem. If after 3 or 4 weeks back in the new term, coaches have met and practised these strategies, then they are prepared for doing so for real. These strategies need a context to be practised within though. In my school it will include some teaching practice that we deem to be of highest value in terms of outcomes for children:
- Modelled and shared writing
- Oral and written feedback on children’s work
- Co-constructing a writers’ toolkit
- Modelling mathematical strategies
- Explicitly addressing misconceptions
Working with coaches in this way enables them to act their way into thinking, and gives them a sound experience in which to frame the language they use to share the vision for coaching and CPD with their colleagues. Also, spacing out the sessions over a few weeks will contribute to maximised retention of the strategies by the coaches. Interspersed with these practices, I’d expect the coaches to be reading in order to build their knowledge. Books like Practice Perfect by Doug Lemov and The Perfect Teacher Coach by Jackie Beere are essential reading, along with great blog posts like these from Alex Quigley @huntingenglish (here, here and here and Shaun Allison @shaunallison (here and here).
In the final post in this series, I’ll be thinking about how coaching can fit into a wider CPD program.