Field geometry?

Looking for simple challenges for children to use outdoors that have links to wider learning, straight lines and circles come to mind.

Challenges:

Lines
Using only three poles and either chalk or cones, can you create a straight line between two points on the playground or field?

Lines can be extended to drawing other geometric shapes. How about exploring Pythagoras theorem? It’s possible with year six. Linking squares with triangles and maybe extending to right angles and building with such simple geometry; builders 3,4,5 triangle?

Can you devise a method for drawing a vertical line? Crib note plumb line, a weight on a string.

Circles
You have a piece of string and a piece of chalk. Devise a way to draw a circle on the playground; for older children, that has a radius of 50cm.

What happens if you have drawn a circle, then “walked” the chalk radius around the circumference and marked points? What shape would it make? How else can a circle be divided?
​
What happens if you draw a straight line, then draw circles at 20cm points along the line? Play with shapes?  
All these challenges could be replicated on a smaller scale with a compass, a ruler and pencils, exploring shapes within circles.

Make windmills?
This exercise was a part of a topic that I did around 1984, with a year six class, looking at energy, so it has some current resonance. Wind and water energies were exemplified and explored through a visit to a local windmill and watermill. Within the DT curriculum, attempts were made to create working models.

Alongside that, exploring circles allowed a homework project to create wind “turbines” that became the focus for a fair test to find the most efficient. The testing was relatively simple, with each turbine mounted on a compass, on a pencil embedded in the ground.
​
Of course, just making our own windmill, coloured in, could be an interesting task in itself.
​

I had been a headteacher for 18 months, when our local arts centre sent out a flyer advertising a forthcoming exhibition by an artist then unknown to me, Saleem Arif. Saleem was born in Hyderabad, studied at Birmingham College of Art and the Royal College of Art before his first solo exhibition in 1982.
​
In addition to the exhibition, the arts centre offered to local schools the opportunity to work with Saleem, who would provide workshops for all Primary age groups, at a modest cost. I very quickly showed an interest, but no-one else apparently did; we were offered Saleem for ten days at very modest cost, if we could also offer some accommodation. One of my staff was prepared to do that, which was very generous.
​

The exhibition, in the September of 1991, was based on a most recent series of work, deriving from earlier works, but with a very much more muted palette. Year six went on a visit on the first day of the exhibition, showed around by Saleem, who explained something of his techniques, together with ideas that he would be using in school. The children therefore approached the coming experience with insights.

Sharing a broad range of techniques as a starter, older children explored the creation of textures in paint, using sand, sawdust and earth. They used scrapers, spatulas, other broad bladed objects as well as paint brushes to apply the paint to different prepared surfaces.
​
Year six decided that they would like to recreate one of Saleem’s recent pictures, so working large, approximately 5m by 3m, they drew the shapes, then started using the learned techniques to fill them in, sometimes working through their lunchtimes to complete the task while Saleem was in the school.
​

Other year groups did a variety of experiences based on textures, with the Reception class creating a huge printed necklace, which led to some storytelling from Saleem, bringing cultural background and imagery together.
​
Saleem came to dinner with my family, entrancing the children, in part because he simply integrated with the family, rather than being an aloof guest. Leaving a signed catalogue of his 1986-1991 works inspired our eldest, then aged eleven to explore for herself. It was this piece of paper dropping from the catalogue that brought back the memories.
​

The experience of bringing specific expertise into the school as an inspiration for learning was sufficiently significant that it became a feature of school life. Especially where the expert was able to engage with processes of thinking and learning, they left the school enhanced by their presence; children met and could aspire to become real life artists, sportspeople or musicians. That on the whole bringing these experiences into school was often much more reasonable cost than an external trip, meant that they could be accommodated in the budget.

It was then a case of finding the right people… Many thanks to Saleem for making our first experiences so positive.

Saleem's website adds much greater biographical detail and an extended gallery.
   http://www.saleem-arif-quadri.co.uk/

Tennis, table-tennis, ping pong or whiff whaff, squash, badminton all games where two or more players take turns to hit a ball or shuttlecock, with scoring systems to see who ultimately wins. Just an example of the binary nature of sport, or possibly more generally in life?
​

Apparently it's my 7th anniversary on Twitter. Sometimes education can appear to be a giant form of whiff waff. I hadn’t heard of this name for a simple game before the 2012 Olympics when one Boris Johnson sought to claim that whiff waff predated table tennis, to be corrected by the sport historians. In doing so, standing by the claim in the face of evidence, he showed the capacity of humans to box themselves into a specific way of thinking.

When there are simplicities in education, they can be framed in such a way that they can appeal to a narrow form of teaching. Having taught since 1971 there have been some simplicities, which can be expressed as:-
·         If children need to know something the simplest way might be to tell them.
·         The order, organisation and articulacy of the teacher will impact on the potential for learning.
·         Any teaching can fail if the children don’t have the means to visualise what the teacher is saying.
·         If children need to overlearn something, they may need to repeat an exercise, or receive some detailed, dedicated teaching or coaching.
·         If teachers want to know if the children have learned something, it may need checking out in some form, a combination of recall tests and use and application challenges.

Having looked at various descriptor models of teaching and learning over the recent past, I think the diagrammatic interpretation of Barak Rosenshine by Oliver Caviglioli describes that approach, to which I would add the earlier CPA (Concrete, pictorial, abstract) thinking of Jerome Bruner and “Dual Coding” thinking.
​
CPA is an essential technique within the Singapore method of teaching maths for mastery. Concrete, pictorial, abstract (CPA) is considered to be a highly effective approach to teaching that develops a deep and sustainable understanding of maths in pupils. It is sometimes referred to as the concrete, representational, abstract (CRA) framework.
​

However, when I started teaching, with classes of 39 children, no TA, occasional parent help and one chalkboard, there was a need to provide for the range and needs of the children. This was done in smaller groups, run on an integrated day approach.

It was, to some extent, a form of survival, but more importantly, the structures within which we could teach our mixed ability classes providing the broadest possible curricular opportunities. It did mean well ordered plans and resources, to underpin the needs of independent actions by children in-task. It was a lot of plate spinning, but that was what we knew and had been trained for. During a pedagogic discussion during my post grad Dip Ed in Environmental Sciences, the discussion focused on the amount of “teaching” that we did in a lesson, with a follow up activity during the subsequent week to track reality. In both “traditional” and “progressive” settings, each of us was doing in excess of 50% of the lesson time as direct teaching, as whole classes or smaller group focused teaching. The remaining 50% was responsive teaching to needs as the arose. Group dynamics meant that there was a varied demand for marking; editing, coaching advice or critiquing/responding.

Task challenge was, from the beginning, central to the approach, differentiated (small tweaks) to the varied needs of the groups and support available to need. Reading was individualised, supported by a colour coded reading scheme and home-school reading records.

It would have been seen now as “progressive”, but children made good progress, as measured by standardised tests.
A great deal of curricular water has flowed under education’s bridges since, not least several iterations of a National Curriculum; each seemingly adding layers of detail to the preceding incarnation. Teachers have often felt the need to run to stand still. Regular readers of the blog will know that I am not enamoured of the 2014 version.
 
This week, as a school Governor, I attended the morning session of a training day, where the staff were looking to develop the broader curriculum. The subject leads had spent time with LA subject inspectors, creating the overviews of the curriculum. The staff role, collaboratively on this day was to put the detail into the outline, structuring the broader curriculum for the term.

As a fly on the wall, it was interesting to listen to discussions that could have taken place in 1986. It struck me that, after thirty years, the constant changes have rarely been evolutionary, too often disjointed and distracting.

Education benefits from reflective development, is supported by long career teachers able to reflect on change over time coupled with newer colleagues bringing their enthusiasm and newer understandings to the discussion. Firm decisions can impact on resourcing, which is then, on an annual cycle, considered for utility, quality and, where necessary, replacement or updating. Teachers and children are entitled to the best quality resources available. However, these can also be supplemented by found items, eg buttons, conkers, stones for counting.

So, if I was a Primary head today, what would I want to be doing?

·         Create an inspiring range of challenging topic and project areas that would embed the necessary knowledge to be used in other scenarios. These would have time allocations, not necessarily to fill a half term, so that Science, History, Geography and Technology all had a secure place.
·         Ensuring that each element was appropriately resourced so that it could happen and be of quality.
·         Link the English and Maths curriculum within themes in such a way that each could make use of the current and recent past topics, so that each fed the other, with opportunities to use and apply earlier skills and knowledge.
·         Ensure that art, drama and music were deployed as interpretative subjects of worth and each capable of supporting the oral English and Maths curriculum.
·         MFL, music and aspects of PE can be used to support the PPA needs of the school, by judicious use of specialists.
·         Utilise one closure day in June or July to enable staff to consider overview planning for the coming year.
·         Then only ask for teacher medium term plans, to see the direction of travel.
·         Short term plans are for the teacher in the classroom, so can take any form that suits.
·         I’d want children to know the focus for their personal efforts at any particular time.
·         Create portfolios of moderated in-house examples that could support discussion and decision making in the school or be used to moderate against other school outcomes to validate judgements.
·         Mentoring, especially of early career teachers, needs to be secure.
·         Every area of life is governed by a measure of capability in some form. “Can do” statements are a guide.

So, to summarise
​
·         Plan long, medium and short with different emphases on what’s recorded and share with supporting adults. Organise the “knowledge journey” developmentally.
·         Order and organise space, resources and consider the available time.
·         Pitch and pace each lesson to known needs of the curriculum and the learners.
·         Set learning tasks that provide some challenge.
·         Share outcomes as learner models of expectation within and between lessons.
·         Evaluate throughout, ensuring continuity of expectation.
·         Checks en route, memory, use and application in challenge.
·         Simple personal record systems of developing vocabulary and presentation needs.
·         Books to become personal learning records.
·         Know your children as fully as possible, recognising that you can’t see exactly what they are thinking.

Children are children, as they always have been. They deserve the best that can be offered.
Schools need to secure their curriculum, so that it can provide the essential core of experience, enhanced by incoming expertise.
​
Something that I wrote a few years ago continues to resonate with me. Teachers are the lead thinkers in their classrooms. They must have every opportunity to be autonomous decision makers, in the moment.
​

As a school Governor, I am involved in staff appointments. We are currently looking for an Assistant Head Teacher for Teaching and Learning; Curriculum Development, our previous, very good AHT having been promoted in another school. What such an activity does is to create opportunities for broad and deep discussions about the details of teaching and learning, particularly in the context of the school and its point of development, both before and during the interview process. It was during one interview that this thought was generated.

I have touched on this idea before in a blog entitled “Tribal memory”, where staff loss can be debilitating.

Teaching and Learning and curriculum development have been the bread and butter of my whole career. You decide on a range of “stuff” that you consider children need to know at particular points in their lives, then decide the best approach to making sure that it “sticks”. Knowledge is broad and the accompanying pedagogies are equally broad.

Schools therefore have had to make strategic decisions. Some of these are likely to be general, in that the “knowledge” in different curriculum areas has been relatively consistent throughout my career, in Primary this can be broadly summarised as variations on Maths, English (R,W,S&L), Topic (H,G,Sc lead, Art, DT interpretation), Music, PE, RE, MFL.

In school and curriculum development terms, the key can be the availability of colleagues with appropriate background to be able to, at least, map out curricular development statements, if necessary, drawing on broader collegiate expertise within and outside the school. This may be particularly acute in smaller schools.

One interview raised the question of personal ambition as a potential drag on development. It is conceivable that, after a period of leading development in one subject area, an experienced teacher might be asked to then oversee an area that had received less attention, in so doing relinquishing responsibility to another. Equally, another teacher might be brought into a school and will wish to “make their mark”, with an eye to their own future promotion prospects. In either case, there will be a hiatus, as stock is taken and proposals made for “improvement”. This could be seen as “change”, a regularly used word in education.

Whereas improvement implies a strategy, unless a comprehensive strategy is articulated, change can become distracting; wholesale change can mean abandoning what went before. As a result, nothing gets fully understood or embedded.

This can be as a result of Government decisions. I'd quite like Government to hold back from initiatives, allow teachers to take stock, to be able to plan securely, in order to put in place structures that can stand the test of time, by allowing consideration of improving parts rather than wholesale alterations every few years. 

​I would still contend that much of the 2014 changes wrought on education were change for change’s sake. After five years, the impact has led to poor implementation in SEND and Ofsted altering their 2019 approach to look at the broader curriculum. Strategy is complex, a bit like a Gaia principle of “wheels within wheels”. Knee-jerk alteration in one area has a knock on into another, often causing unintended, or unforeseen consequences.

School managers need to plan development with care, mapping clearly how different elements work together, seeking to avoid duplication of or wasted teacher effort.

Distraction destroys continuity. Continuity and progression were by-words of my school career; progressively building from one phase of education to the next, within an overall aspiration for all children.

To illustrate this, I now draw on the “Learning and Teaching” policy that was my school’s articulation of purpose. It was set as a central plank that supported developmental colleague dialogue, enabling discussion of detail without distorting the whole, or the proposed learning journeys through a child’s life at the school.

While no statement is perfect, it gave clarity to teachers appointed to the school. Communication is key to development, from overall strategy to the detail of a specific area. If teachers are informed, they can support the strategic direction.

The "class of 1993"; stability supported development, embedding qualities that survived change.

Learning and Teaching Policy (first articulated 1993, developed to 2005)
A Statement of School Vision

Everyone involved with the educational process at X School is a partner in progress
This, in terms of children, is encompassed in the motto Thinking, Working, Playing Together.
Educationally making guided progress, through individual and group effort.

Our Aim
A typical child leaving X School will have these attributes
Confidence in themselves, as people and learners.
Awareness of the world around them, locally and wider, showing sensitivity, an enquiring approach, and a developing sense of awareness of themselves as spiritual beings.
Capable of working in many different ways, with different grouping of others, and be able to sustain effort when required.
Solve problems with different, but developing, levels of independence.
Think creatively and reflectively when appropriately challenged, organising their needs, and being able to talk clearly to anyone with an interest in their activities.
Accept guidance to achieve the best they can, with a clear understanding of their strengths and areas for further improvement.

A policy for learning, achieving the vision
Children, their thinking and learning, are our core purpose, within the context of a broad, balanced and relevantly challenging curriculum. They are to become active producers of learning, rather than passive consumers of teaching.
Children will start as information gatherers, capable of clear description.
Children will progressively become problem solvers, applying a range of relevant skills, able to articulate clearly in speech and then writing, the detail of their learning, and to have a developing repertoire of presentational skills through which they can show their ideas.
Careful consideration of information, and logical thinking, together with the ability to explain their thoughts, using 2-D or 3-D models, will lead to secure links in learning.
Learning processes will be clearly articulated to children, who should be able to explain what they are doing, and why.
The processes through which the children will be challenged will be known to teachers, parents, support staff or any other assisting adult.
The potential for learning across and between different abilities needs to be maintained, to ensure that children derive learning from as many sources as possible.
The taught curriculum will be well taught, with teachers working to improve their personal skills and practice across the curriculum.
ICT in all its forms will be a central tool of development.
The school and each of its constituent parts, will see itself as part of a wider learning community, deriving information and good practice from sources that complement our own developing practice.

Putting the vision into practice
Teachers at X School plan to ensure that the vision and aims are put into practice, employing methodologies outlined in the policy for learning, through an approach summarized as Analyse, Plan, Do, Review, Record, Report.

Analyse… Teachers will receive information from a range of sources about the prior attainment of each child. This will provide a framework upon which to base decisions about working arrangements, suitable objectives for learning and tasks to achieve these.
​
Plan… Teachers plan over different timescales, annual, based upon allocated topic specifications. It is for individual teachers to use these specs creatively to provide a dynamic approach to learning.

​Contributing to school level Planning Detail; see blog on “Planning”

Whole of National Curriculum interpreted through School-based Topic Specifications for each topic within each subject.
Literacy and numeracy frameworks.

Planning at different levels (teachers)
Content
Learning needs
Space, timescales and resources

Do… Tasks given to children will be creative, challenging and engaging, leading to anticipated progress.
Task design. Tasks will have a definite purpose in progressing an aspect of a child’s progress, known to the child and any assisting adult.
Activity presentation. All activity will be clearly presented and understood by children before being active.
Independence levels, skill, knowledge and attitude will all be considered when devising the task parameters, as the different learning attributes of individuals and groups should be encompassed in the task challenges.

Children as learners
Understanding task… Children will have a clear grasp of what they are being challenged to achieve, be able to discuss and articulate purposes when asked.
Task behaviours… Children will be expected to demonstrate appropriate approaches to tasks, developing persistence to achieve.
Team working… Children will be challenged to operate as collaborative, independent learners on tasks specifically created to allow for qualities of cooperation to be developed.
Oral skill…Children will develop appropriate descriptive, analytical, exploratory languages to communicate clearly to a peer or interested adult.
Recording skill, written, pictorial, mathematical…Within any learning experience there will be opportunities for children to use different forms of recording to help them to remember sequences of events within an activity.
Evaluation… Children learn about learning by doing, by reflecting on the process and activity, and evaluating changes to approaches for future reference.
Review… Children will develop as primary evaluators of their drafts. Peer reviews will be developed over time, with the teacher giving informative feedback to help with the next phase of development.
By being given tasks that they will need to discuss, decide on action, carry out, review, re-evaluate and repeat, they will develop an insight into the ways in which adults work and solve problems.

Outcomes..Review
Teacher as reviewer and quality controller…Any piece of work from a child is the current draft capable of being reviewed and improved. Ongoing oral feedback should support the child within the learning process. Marking should provide opportunities for advice, and an overview of quality.
Feedback to children…should enable each child to review their own needs in learning for subsequent pieces of activity.
Room for improvement… advice on areas for development.
Objective and subjective…Correcting spelling or an aspect of grammar may be clearly objective, whereas a commentary starting “I liked…..” would be subjective.

Moderation…At intervals it is clearly good practice to share views on achievement. Moderation allows a consensus view about a discrete piece of produced work.

Record… Teachers will keep records which assist them in progressing learning for individual children.

Report… At half year and year end, teachers will write reports to inform parents about achievements and room for improvement.
​
Review, Recording and Reporting, especially individual needs
To colleagues
To parents
Significant others

I would want to suggest, in this blog, that system leaders should, as a priority, look at the demands made by their system and adjust accordingly, to reduce or ameliorate external demands where possible. Workload has an impact on well-being and work-life balance.
​

I’ve spent the past 47 years in schools in some capacity, so have a lifetime’s experience of workload over an extended period. I’ve written some blogs about this in the past and the links are at the bottom of this post, for anyone interested.

A Twitter question in passing led to me offering some thoughts on the needs of a first time headteacher.
·         Start from a clear, preferably audited, description of where the school currently is.
·         Strengths/areas to develop.
·         Essentials/priorities.
·         Aspirations.
·         Create a map for development, term, year, 3 year.
·         Projects; what, who, when, how much?
·         Evaluation schedule.
·         Communicate fully.

When I reflected on these, it gave rise to broader thoughts on the workloads of individual teachers and the demands that can be made by management.

Workload has always been a relatively simple thing to express in terms of work; expectations and available time.
The time is a finite element, in terms of the teaching load and associated expectations from disparate parts of the system, planning, preparation of resources, marking and assessment and any necessary meetings.

Expectations are also personal, in that each of us is aware of the need to ensure that our knowledge is appropriate for the teaching that we have to do. I have never met a teacher who didn’t want to d a good job. Maybe I have been lucky in that, but with teaching being a thinking job, thinking doesn’t stop at the school gates. In addition, it is probably a truism that a less experienced teacher will take longer over planning, preparation, marking and assessment than an experienced teacher.

System demands vary between schools; some expect x amount of planning, while others might need x+ or x-. This may be as a result of school insecurity in a world where external (Ofsted) validation is needed.

System and personal demand can alter from one year to another, especially in Primary, where total responsibility for a year group can alter from year to year. If this is coupled with a change of school, contextual differences can be significant. This is very evident when working with ITE trainees moving to a second key stage in a different school; earlier confidence from the first placement can soon be dented.
​
Ok, so what can be done to seek to support this variety of needs and avoid teachers looking like this?

As a headteacher of a one form entry Primary, I was very aware of these different aspects as I regularly taught as first line supply cover, which in some cases was extended periods. Organisational demands need to be capable of achievement within available time.

·         So, as a school, we looked at planning demands. There is a need to look at the planning needs over different timescales, long, medium and short.

·         Every subject area developed subject specifications for each year group, showing what was anticipated as a minimum level of understanding to be developed during each topic. This took place during staff meetings, closures or bought in cover time. This was occasionally supplemented by taking finalists ITE students, which enabled a small amount of extra release.

·         We eventually settled on an annual plan to show the coverage of the whole curriculum for the year. The structure changed with each new teacher, who could look at the overview and see their own linkage to get best advantage from successive learning. It allowed some element of creativity and utilised personal expertise. This was then captured within topic spec reviews.

·         This was developed during half of a closure in late June or early July, before the summer holiday. It included a two-week topic of the teacher’s own devising, which would be the only detailed planning that would be needed during the summer holiday.

·         On the second Friday of the autumn term, we had a closure, half of which was administration, the other half given to refining the planning detail of the rest of the term, based on the teacher knowledge of the new class. These plans were the teachers’ own plans and would only be referred to by others in development discussions, only on one occasion with reference to capability.

·         School resources were sought to needs, especially after Local Management of Schools (LMS). Every February/March, subject leads were asked to list those things that had to be replaced or updated and a list of those “nice to haves” that would enhance the school offering. These lists fed the budget decisions and gave each subject lead their allocated budget. Resources were listed on the topic specs.

·         Staff time was bought before PPA became an expectation, through the employment of PE coaches and a music teacher. In addition, I took the school, as infants and juniors for a half hour singing session, so that each half of the school could have a short meeting. How PPA time is allocated and then used to good effect is important.

·         The timetable of meetings was decided largely at the outset, in general terms, with additional demand such as parent evenings or reports leading to no staff meetings in those weeks. Closure plans were linked to staff meeting schedules, so that follow up could be more effective; retrieval practice for staff meetings? Closures and staff meetings were largely devoted to subject development, once a month for admin, or a ten-minute noticeboard, to need.

·         The NQT or newbie will need some support, so partnering or mentoring may be necessary for both, if there are not to be avoidable issues. A bit of help at the right time can be all that’s needed. A school where help is generally available, rather than “someone’s job” is better, in my opinion. Everyone a mentor would be my maxim, but I accept that for some purposes a single talk partner is needed, even as a headteacher.

·         It’s also a need for every member of staff to be the eyes and ears of the school, looking out for each other, seeking to avoid the inevitable additional demands when a colleague is off.

       There is one overriding question that everyone should continually ask; why are we doing this?

                                    Collegiality and communication are key components.

More on workload
https://chrischiversthinks.weebly.com/blog-thinking-aloud/on-workload
https://chrischiversthinks.weebly.com/blog-thinking-aloud/workload-thoughts
https://chrischiversthinks.weebly.com/blog-thinking-aloud/education-house-of-cards-workload
On planning
https://chrischiversthinks.weebly.com/blog-thinking-aloud/planning-learning
 

It’s interesting having a perspective on working in education and learning that now spans 48 years from walking into Training College. There have been many changes and challenges along the way, but, in essence, there is much more in common across the ages than difference.

Let’s start at the very beginning
A very good place to start.
When you read you begin with ABC
Let's see if I can make it easier

As a parent of three, step-parent to three and a grandparent to eight, I have had a lot of opportunities to view children growing up; the current span is from 15 months to almost 15 years. Each of the family settings varies, in place, parental jobs and therefore available time and in disposable incomes. These variables inevitably play some part in the opportunities that are available to each family and therefore on the cultural potential made available to each child.

The children grow and flourish through their parental love, diet and their spoken language, with appropriate encouragement to make marks and to enjoy books.

The environment that surrounds young children today is different from that which I enjoyed. Not in terms of the natural world, where there are still plants, animals and natural features; in some cases just… but perhaps their opportunity to engage with it, with an interested adult able to point out the different elements and to provide the names of things. There are also the distractions of the digital world. Whereas as a child, I was more au fait with string and a penknife and den making, today’s young have early access to screen distractions and can very soon work their way into desired apps.

I have long worried that a school cannot rely on a child’s ability to identify easily with the elements of their locality to support their speaking, their reading and their writing attempts. Having spent time as a volunteer, leading wildlife groups, it was clear in the 1980s that it was a minority interest. Education does still rely, to some extent on a child’s experience beyond the school gates.

How does a child describe the feeling of walking on sand in bare feet, paddling in the sea or lake, getting caught in a rain storm, walking through long grass, the sound of leaves being walked on or kicked, and so many other things, if they haven’t had the opportunity?

Can we build a strong curriculum and strong education on missing experiences? Is experience the beginning of “knowledge rich” education, in that it provides a base for things to “stick” to?

What’s school? People, places and things

Organise rooms, which used to be defined as 55 sq m for a group of 30 children, or a currently defined infant classful.
Supply desks and chairs; this has varied over time, with discussions about the amount of table space needed.

There’s also been wide variation on whether to supply personal storage space for books; should children be responsible for their own exercise books or should they be centralised? Either decision can cause logistical issues when books are needed for a lesson; either movement of each child to find their one book, or teacher/monitors to give out books. This can be pre-empted between lessons, getting out books on entry to the classroom, or someone must give them out before the lesson; assuming places are known…

Classroom resources need a retrieval and return system that can facilitate whole class lessons as well as intermittent needs; variation between age groups, from picture clues to written headings.

Space, resources and time have always been the variables within a school and teacher’s organisational control.

Space…

How much space is available to support the learners, and how is it orientated to support the teaching that is likely to happen?

How desks are arranged, to allow sight lines, ease of movement around the classroom, for children and adults, but also to facilitate different areas of the curriculum. Alteration to the needs of different subjects and teaching may need to be easily accomplished; I have seen whole classroom reorganisation within a couple of minutes, accompanied by a piece of music. “I can’t do x because of the way tables are arranged.” does not seem to me to be a reasonable response. Where there’s a will…

Resources…

Throughout my teaching career, there have been shelves of resources that have been bought at some stage, because they seemed a good idea at the time or because the sales patter was irresistible. They gathered dust through lack of use, often because newer staff were unaware of the potential of the resource. There’s a significant need to keep on top of learning resources, to ensure that they are up to date and do the job that’s required of them. Collated and identified, they are more likely to be used than if they are just in a pile somewhere.

There’s probably a similar kit of resources in every classroom, centred around the stationery, which also needs some organisation. Painted tins and glass jam jars were a feature of my first classroom. Today there’s a variety of plastic tool boxes (scissors, erasers rulers), cutlery drawers (paint brushes) or cutlery holders for pens and pencils. Classroom desks can also sometimes be awash with SPaG reminders, or similar prompts.

Maths, reading, writing, art corners might be created, as resource bases, with topic resources brought in to need, from a central collection.

Time…

It’s sometimes easy to forget that time in school is under teacher and school control, but, some organisational elements can exert control over the available time that puts pressure on lesson dynamics, especially for some vulnerable learners who can’t quite get things finished. If it’s clear that a child has worked hard, for them, and needs a bit of finishing time, does this mean part of a playtime lost, or can the teacher allow a few extra minutes in order for the child to finish?

We have been in a period where maths and English have seemed to dominate the curriculum. Some organisation of this, sets for example, impose a timetable need. This can mean that some children might not be able to access the learning in the available time, but, in a classroom setting, perhaps the teacher can make an executive decision to add a few necessary minutes to a lesson, to bridge a playtime and allow children some “finishing off time” rather than rushing and not completing or not being able to show their best efforts.

It’s also possible to find many examples where tasks/activities are chosen to fill the set time, rather than being able to challenge all children, limiting some.

School time is often extended through “homework”. At Primary, if homework is to be seen as a useful adjunct to school work, I would prefer to see talking homework, eg a question or an image to discuss, with the outcomes of discussion feeding back into lessons. Click on the blue title to open a linked blog.

 Primary Curriculum; a child’s world?

There have been great similarities across my career in the curriculum offerings of every school. For a start, there was always mathematics, more often than not supported by a bought scheme. The strictness of adherence to the scheme varied from school to school, but, in all cases, we were required to use the Teacher’s Guide as our methodological “bible”, to ensure consistency of approach.

English varied more from school to school, with the majority drawing heavily on the topic curriculum for stimuli for talk and writing. Reading, from around 1975 was supported by the Cliff Moon colour coded system, with different layers of books available to the children; one at teacher level, where there might be a small number of errors, and one at more fluent levels, to read in free time or at home, with or without a parent. Most of the schools in which I worked in the 70/80s also had a Home-School reading diary, with parents encouraged to record their thoughts from hearing their children read. It was very much individualised and we were encouraged to hear children read regularly. Writing was collated into excellent practice during the National Writing Project 1985-8. It mirrored what good schools were already doing, but also gave the basis for conversation between schools about what constituted good writing experiences.

Topic work enabled science, history and geography to lead investigation, with music, PE (dance), DT and art to be used to interpret the outcomes of the investigation. This element of the curriculum provided the opportunities for report writing, letters, note taking and a range of genres with imaginative narratives. The school library was a source of investigation through reading non-fiction texts, using the index and contents list to find out facts for themselves and to share with their classmates, often producing a glossary display; an alphabet of…topic.

It is interesting to me that the 1987 National Curriculum was a 95% correspondence with that which my and other local schools were doing. It meant small tweaks rather than big alterations.

I am finding the current discussion on the broader curriculum a little stilted at times. There will be significant similarities across time and there will already be a lot of good practice that can be retained.

Topic titles allocated to year groups.

Planning is essential.

Topic details; essential knowledge to be shared; key questions to be explored; resources available within the school or locally. When I was a head, we developed “topic specs” in around 1993.

Link opportunities between the topic and spoken, read and written English, or mathematics; using and applying knowledge from each to benefit the other, making appropriate links.

Timescales allocated and the order of study, to enable learning from earlier topics to impact on subsequent learning.  

Organised into an annual plan, it’s possible to ensure coverage and also sufficient opportunity to explore specifics in depth, knowing that the year was planned.
​
It’s useful to have an end point for each topic area, maybe a small museum, a display, a performance, piece of art, music or drama/movement, with the potential for an audience to provide the spur for higher quality outcomes.
​

​In many ways, it is sad that we have reached a point in our education history where we are having to reinstate that which was already there in many cases. The 2014 curriculum changes were such that elevating maths and English to such heights distorted teacher efforts, in schools and across training providers who have to follow Government expectations. It takes time and effort to develop curriculum, to articulate a school approach, to embed this into daily practice and then to evaluate and refine, with a constant need to revisit when there are new staff who will need support and mentoring.

For interest, here’s my school KS2 science overview from 2004; based on 7.5 hours per week, blocked time to need.
​

In the meantime, while this development is actioned, five years on from the changes, another generation of children passes through the school, potentially fed a diet limited by the school interpretation of it’s needs at that point in time. Data in maths and English define external judgement. If a school feels vulnerable, concentrating on what is measured can seem an appropriate course of action, but is can also lead to a diminished learning opportunity, which, if coupled with a diminished home opportunity can doubly exclude children from wider life opportunities.

There’s much talk of cultural capital. We need to look at life experiences, too…
​
Is showing children pictures the same as being there?

An open book? How do you tell your story?

Do you offer children something to think, talk, read and write about?

It’s been a quiet Christmas break, which is how it is when you get a bit older. It’s usually making sure that younger generations have a good time; that they are fed and clothed and have presents to open. It has been interesting to drop in and out of Twitter to see what’s being discussed. It can be an eye opener, or occasionally a tablet shutter, as views pass that might elicit a type-delete response.

However, recent tweets about the curriculum suggest that Curriculum is the current hot topic, as Ofsted are putting it at the centre of their next round of thinking, and some commentators seemingly jumping on the opportunity to propound their “knowledge rich” agenda, as if it’s a new phenomenon.

My career in teaching started with training at St Luke’s College, Exeter, from 1971-74. Although Plowden was a high-profile element that was the new core of pedagogic reflection, the sharing of knowledge was central to the science course that I started and the Environmental Education course to which I transferred in year 2, providing a broad subject base for Primary, which became my passion.

It was based on knowledge, the interpretation of which into classroom narratives was left to us. We explored “programmed learning”, which was exemplified by exploring the stages of making a cup of tea or a piece of toast. This showed us the essence of embedded knowledge that is assumed in giving instruction or developing a narrative. It made us better “storytellers”; a mixture of substance and exploration. If you think of sharing a book/(his)story with children, their background knowledge inevitably impacts on their understanding of the whole; that’s Hirsch in a sentence.

We talked of challenge in tasking, with the challenge depending on our understanding of the knowledge that the children had already encountered; it was effectively tested through use and application. Within the task, when children encountered difficulty, it highlighted areas that had ether been missed or had not been assimilated effectively, so in-task teaching would occur. There were tremendous similarities to my own education experiences in the 1950/60s. It was also writ large in the available resource materials, such as Nuffield Science 5-13.
​
Knowledge and challenge were intertwined.
​

And, in my school experience as a teacher, it remained so throughout.

I still have a copy of the textbook that underscored my initial training; Environmental Studies, by George Martin and Edward (Ted) Turner, who was the course leader. For those who would wish to claim that knowledge-rich is a new phenomenon, I’d offer them this book, from 1972 as both a starter knowledge across subjects that sought to give an introduction to thinking practically about the world, supplemented in each chapter with an extensive bibliography for extended reading.

The premise of the course was to provide teachers with the background to introduce children into their world through three layers, Investigation and interpretation, communication, inspiration. Over time, this gave rise to my personal mantra of learning challenge as something to think, talk, and write about, leading to presentation, preferably to a known audience.

The course explored the living and non-living world; essentially chemistry, physics and biology with added geology; the past world around us, architectural features, local archaeological sites and using artefacts; rural and urban living, settlement studies, including use of materials for dwellings and other buildings; conservation, especially within an urban settlement; histories, especially from a locality perspective, but also within a national and international perspective. (Ted Turner took as his inspiration the notion of the Renaissance, especially Leonardo da Vinci. That allowed the summer field trip to be to Florence, at a time when it was possible to wander into galleries freely. However we also had to write about the other aspects too; planning how we would use the available resources to offer the broader curriculum.

Mathematics, of measures, counting and data, language, art and music were significant features.
​
It was a good basic starter, to which I later added two part-time Diplomas, one in Environmental Sciences and the second in Language and Reading Development.
​

Every school within which I worked, from 1974 onwards, had curriculum organisation, to differing degrees. Some had simply headings, of topics that had to be covered within each year, others had broad resource materials from which to develop the topic narrative, which was left to the classteacher to develop based on knowledge of their classes.

The 1987 National Curriculum was a 95% match with our existing curriculum; I was a deputy in a First School.
The subsequent Dearing Review gave a 95% correspondence.

When I became a HT in 1990, there was a need to create a firmer base for the curriculum, which could have been described as a little ad-hoc.

We had a mix of planning layers, starting with whole school and year group. This was premised on allocating topics appropriately.

Every topic had a “topic spec”, which was designed by the subject lead, ensuring that the NC expectations were clear, articulating essential knowledge, skills, challenges, available school and locality resources, plus reminders of quality outcome expectations (Level descriptors rewritten as descriptors of child capability).
​
Every teacher received their planning file in July, before a half day of a closure that allowed them to organise their planning thoughts before the summer holiday. A copy came to me as HT, so I knew in July what the next year “learning map” looked like.

The first two weeks were always designated as “getting to know and settling” weeks, with a teacher designed topic. The second Friday was always a closure, half a day given to planning the detail of the next (few) topic(s), including resourcing from school stock. Topics ranged from a week to several weeks, depending on the needs. The interplay of topics with English and maths allowed for topic generated information to be used in writing or to create mathematical opportunity that offered measures, counting leading to data, or shape and space exploration.

Because the year was based around revisiting areas, especially in maths and English, revision of ideas, aka interleaving, was embedded.

In so doing, we had a curriculum with meat, two veg and a good helping of dessert.

It was planned longer term, so that it had substance. It was broad, balanced and relevant, drawing from the locality as much as possible, to fully immerse the children into their community, as well as drawing from wider opportunities; we did take the children on local trips, but also to London, to the British Museum for Greek, Roman or Egyptian exhibitions. However, time was always against us for day trips, with at least two hours each way on a coach and costs getting ever higher. The IWB did allow us to bring a level of experience into classrooms, taking over from the video or CD player.

While “bright ideas” might be imported, these were always evaluated against what was already offered. If they added something, they were incorporated.

It was a cycle of constant improvement, supported by every subject lead having at least a half day with a County inspector to review the school offering as a whole.

The 1997 National Curriculum with the accompanying strategies, did put some of this under strain, especially when we needed to replace experienced staff. It was noticeable that some applicants were used to a narrower diet. However, personalised CPD opportunities, eg shadowing colleagues, allowed insights into expectations. Staffing stability helped with this; we held onto the “tribal memories”… see blog…

The breadth paid off in national testing, too, where English, maths and science scored highly. Every subject was valued, with quality outcomes celebrated throughout the school, with displays or presentations opening learning to others.

The 2014 Primary National Curriculum was always a worry to me, even though I was not school based, but working in ITE and with parents and inclusion. It articulated English and Maths extensively, while others were diminished. Listening to Tim Oates, early in the process, saying that it was designed to be easier to test highlighted an underlying political agenda.

As we are now a couple of days into 2019. Perhaps a chance for reflection and refinement?

I have no problem with a conversation about what children should be exposed to through their school experience. There must be a clear narrative to learning; it is after all, the school’s internal book.

Every subject can be explored by a 2-year old, a 12-year old or a 22-year old. Their ability to interact with the experience will vary widely, from an initial exploratory phase, which I would see as “play”, through to accommodating, reflecting on and reacting to, ever more sophisticated information. We are on a constant journey, carrying with us, at any point, the accumulated wisdom of earlier experiences. So a “knowledge organiser” as our “topic specs” can be seen today, will vary considerably for each age group, and should do so. It should support a developing narrative approach, not become a knowledge dump which an inexperienced practitioner might simply regurgitate.

Order and organisation are key to teaching and learning success, over different timescales.

I would argue that annual plans allowed teachers to ensure coverage while also developing each topic at depth. Colleagues also benefited from collegiate sharing, either one to one or within practical workshops.

At classroom level, each teacher planned in ways that suited them. They were personal diaries, only considered if there were question marks over children’s progress. Classroom teachers are paid to think. They need to think clearly, on multiple layers, always with children and their progress in mind. That’s why it can be tough at times.

When teaching becomes top-down, teachers start to look at what is expected, to second guess what “those above” are looking for. That this has, on occasion been subject to the management or Ofsted rumour mill, can’t be denied; one local school or colleague passing on their tips from their own inspection, so others copy.

To hold to your own course can be challenging, but it is your own school’s journey that’s important.

It’s your narrative, your history, your present.

More important, it’s your children’s narrative, their history and their present.

That’s your data; what you do for them and what they get out of it. It’s a mix of the obvious, the displays and the books, but also their attitudes in school, their capacity to engage in talk with others. It’s a story, based on words, not numbers, so that children can engage with their own developing narratives.

Children’s pleasure in overcoming challenges and learning…led by teachers who enjoy teaching.
​

Curriculum 1971-2014; broad, balanced and relevant.
Curriculum 2018; knowledge rich (or learning rich)?

Put simply, classroom learning is children, context, engagement, guidance and adaptation, evaluation of outcomes. The whole captured within communication.

Remembering always the maxim that education( life) is a journey not a destination. (Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American essayist, poet, and leader of the Transcendentalist movement in the early nineteenth century.)

It’s strangely fascinating occasionally just to be a bystander to conversations on social media. There’s a current penchant for everything curriculum, as if it’s the next new thing that no-one has ever thought of before You can almost hear the sound of cash tills ringing with the book potential.

The recent Ofsted commentaries on curriculum are strangely reminiscent of earlier HMI statements, one series of which was dubbed the “raspberry ripple” books because of their covers. The September 2018 commentary suggested that there was a lack of curriculum development expertise. In some ways this is not surprising, as for twenty years curriculum and pedagogy has been engaged through ever tighter dictat, seemingly removing teacher and school discretion, whereas autonomy is the life-blood of a thinking organisation.

Forgive me for being old(er). I started as a classroom teacher in 1974 after three years at training college; my first Primary class will now be coming up to 55 years old. In that extended career, I never worked in a school without a curriculum in some form. Some were stronger than others. They might have been based on a scheme for maths and English, with Topics (now called the foundation subjects) being the area that was apportioned to specific year groups. Once you knew the topics, there was the search for the available school resources, or perhaps an investigation in the locality to seek out appropriate places to visit or people with local interests. We were, to all intents and purposes, organising the knowledge, supplemented by the County Library Service and, from time to time, museums and costume services. It was relatively easy to put together a package of essential knowledge that would be shared, sometimes with teachers making some kind of information book that was derived from the various sources.

In looking through my notebooks from my career, I came across a diagrammatic version that was the top layer of an early curriculum map. It’s not detailed, but an overview that enabled themes to be allocated to year groups, then further developed through locality resources and resource boxes.
​
In many ways variations on this have been a feature of my career. Start at the top layer, then work ever deeper, providing greater detail at different points to support teacher thinking in their classroom. This last layer might include agreed details that have to be structured into the theme narrative and retained for future use.

​These early thoughts were supplemented further with a very active inspection and advisory service and teachers centres that provided both courses and in-house support to school development.

From an earlier blog:

Curricula are usually written by experts, from the expert perspective, ensuring that information is delivered, whether or not it is appropriate for the learner’s current needs. 
As teachers, unconstrained by predetermined curricular expectations, we were able to assume the mantle of experts, reflecting on what the four year olds brought with them in the way of life experiences which would be the start points for school based experiences and exploration.

So history started as My story, based on storyboards created with a series of photos, then developed into His or Her story, with reference to parents and grandparents. Local walks to look at houses of interest started a link between History and Geography, with sketch mapping, drawing in situ or photos being taken (development time, much easier now?). Parents and grandparents came to tell their own stories, recorded onto c45, 60 or 90 tapes to be replayed and reflected upon. For homework, children were asked to telephone grandparents to ask a series of questions. Timelines were created throughout, so historical perspectives were constantly being revisited, as knowledge was added. And we got back to the Victorians with photograph based family trees, together with the accompanying narrative.

Building materials became the stuff of science, complemented by Lego or other construction material, as well as clay models of houses, made out of very small bricks, fired in the kiln. Trials with garden clay compared to the bought variety. One child brought in a tile found in their garden, which we took to the local museum to be told it was Roman. Visiting the local church we discovered even more tiles, being used as wall bricks and on the way back a local aunt offered the chance to have a look inside a house originally dating to 1580. I know, risk assessments, CRB etc. The Tudor context allowed exploration of timber as a building material. One idea often led to another, with settlements, including the Anglo-Saxon beginnings of the village being explored, with the support of the local history society.

In reality, what is a curriculum? It is a series of related contexts within which learners will enhance their understanding of the world in which they live, allowing opportunities for language acquisition, broadening communication, real contexts for writing and other recording.  The mathematics of measures and data creation supported the core learning at every age. So the basics were the backbone of topic work. The contexts provided the creative structures into which the relevant subjects could be fitted.

Asking questions and seeking answers were the basis for both library research and experiential science activity, which might be based on the notion of finding out interesting ideas to share with the rest. Every subject had value for what it brought to the child as thinking and learning opportunities. The art table was a permanent fixture within the classroom, with half a dozen children regularly interpreting information in picture form.

When the National Curriculum was brought in in 1987, I was a deputy in a First School. Our audit of the school curriculum against the NC showed a 95% correspondence, with a couple of tweaks to be effected.

This became a feature of revisions; small tweaks were needed to accommodate the update.

I came across my notes from 1987, when I had responsibility for science. I had grouped the sixteen attainment targets, yes 16, into three main areas; scientific processes, our environment, make it move/forces, and three supplementary areas; electricity/magnetism, sound and music and light. These might have been organised as larger, three-week projects, or perhaps a week of experiences.

It was not long before a reorganisation led to the sixteen ATs becoming four main areas; virtually the same content, but a reduction in areas for assessment, essentially materials, physical world, living world and scientific exploration.
When I became a HT in 1990, we worked hard on the curriculum, because, although the school had taken on elements of the NC, there were gaps which needed to be addressed.

The approach was refined over time and can ne read about in a blog on planning. There is a clear focus on layering.
In addition, as a school, we also looked at quality versus quantity in writing.

It was clear that children were being asked to undertake a considerable amount of writing, but that, for the most part, any writing in subjects other than English were of poorer quality.

We moved from this to identify the main writing approach for the week, which would be developed through different stages; modelled, organised and drafted, with occasional redrafting for display quality, for an audience.

The two-page approach to writing that we developed is shared as writing process, tweak your books which morphed through all writing in one exercise book, to using the exercise book as a personal organiser. This highlighted that writing is writing in every subject. It allowed for each week, or fortnight to be devoted to a particular project, perhaps a report from a practical experience, to letter writing, or imaginary story. As a head, I encouraged teachers to consider the use of time available for quality writing. This could be an hour by hour for essential teaching and modelling, note making or early organisation activities. It might be a morning to enable a range of drafting and evaluation/critique activities. Timetable flexibility allows quality to emerge, rather than unfinished work. Over time, the time frames reduced to emphasise fluency.

Topic areas, essentially the foundation subjects, were organised in different layers, as articulated in the planning blog. Topics lasted as long as was needed, but all allocated topics had to be shared. Topic themes were resourced by subject coordinators, with a topic specification and a collation of the resources available within the school. Book resources were sourced through the County Library Service.

Within these areas, we reflected on the commonality of learning themes and came up with the “Making Sense of Experience” model; a means of looking at deepening experience, at any age. The “Experience, explore, explain” mantra was central to the thinking; simple enough to remember, but embedding many different elements.

In 2014, the current NC was enacted. Having listened to Tim Oates, when we shared a panel, telling the assembled staff that the 2014 version was created to be easier to test, I started to worry. With it being maths and English heavy with testing in these areas, the next few years have shown that the wider curriculum has diminished, in some cases significantly. However, there is a strong argument for the curriculum retaining its breadth and depth.
​

So why are we where we are?

My simple answer would be estate-wide small thinking, more from the point of view of ever closer attention on the minutiae of teaching and learning, especially by some individuals who have made national and international names, and a lot of money from publishing, by a focus on small bits. The words that we use, such as differentiation, assessment, planning, writing, reading, phonics along with others, have been packaged and repackaged into formulae, then interpreted into book form, to be sold into the education spending market, which itself has grown significantly over the past 25 years.

A couple of the latest high-profile areas are “growth mindset” and research. Each has the potential to become formulaic, distracting and ultimately to be devalued. The former, to me is what teaching and learning are all about, otherwise what’s the point and the latter, as an investigative mind-set, is what I’d want from all teachers, seeking to refine their practice.

The issue with buying a scheme for doing the thinking for you is that you can stop thinking about the whole and how things fit together, and that’s what I’d say some have done. These schemes can dictate timetables, as children are packaged up into appropriate sized groups to undertake the specified activities, often led by the less well-informed members of staff, so that, although “coverage” might be assured, the depth of understanding might be suspect for many. These groups are, by default, mini sets or streams, so can become self-limiting systems. Time is also lost, as children move between areas of the school to be part of their small groups.

There has been successive reorganisation of priorities, with literacy and numeracy taking over from English and Maths, with a subsequent downgrade of other subjects, all of which provide the background information against which English and Maths operate in the real world. There is talk of the knowledge curriculum, but the knowledge areas of the curriculum, in some places and for some children are under some threat.

The small thinking arises out of a sound-bite need for politicians, to show that they are doing something to improve the situation. The Literacy Hour was not the be-all and end-all of the Literacy Strategy, yet it became the simplistic message given on the radio and TV every morning. For the past four years, we have heard phonics equals reading as the mantra.

The problem with both messages is that it can distort practice to the point where other aspects of each subject, which are equally or more vital, are diminished, so teachers and children lose sight of the bigger messages.

Levels became the bête noire of the system because they became distorted into data points, rather than remaining as the progress descriptors that they were in the beginning. From misuse, they lost their purpose and became distorting, as they became high stakes in showing progress. The number and the data point lost the accompanying words, but, at least in some of the foundation subjects, the words could still be a useful starting point for reflection on progression.

Like all things, I’d argue that a focus on detail is essential, but that at every stage any change in one aspect needs to be reflected upon across the whole learning system, otherwise it can be distorting.

It’s a little bit like an exercise regime where concentration on one part of the body can create a distorting effect.
It's got to start with the whole, consider the parts and then put the whole back together. 

And when it comes down to simplicities, the whole relies on effective communication in all forms, pitched to the audience, using words that they can understand, sharing images to supplement the words and to enhance the capacity to make links with earlier experiences.

It takes an aware teacher to be able to do that with facility. Teachers need subject and pedagogic knowledge. Thinking teachers sharing a thoughtful curriculum and supporting each other with their own knowledge and sharing successful pedagogy can significantly alter the curricular diet for every child.
​

The HMI report for 2018 includes a commentary about the teaching of and support for SEND.

​In many ways, I am not surprised. Working with Inclusion Quality Mark for eight years up to 2014, it was clear, from visits to and supporting schools, 2013-14, attending and presenting at conferences, that the complexities of the changes that were being wrought on schools in a very short time would be very difficult to achieve. That the changes also included system changes outside schools, at a time when austerity cuts were really beginning to bite, only served to exacerbate the situation for more vulnerable children.

Schools felt that they had to focus on curriculum and assessment, the latter having been put into free-fall by a Government unwilling to offer clear guidance. As schools would also be inspected on the new system, it became an imperative, especially for schools which felt vulnerable; borderline good, RI or SM.

Systems are still not yet fully effective in all schools. The sheer weight of requirement, especially for Primary schools, to embed mathematics and English, meant that the wider curriculum was sometimes given less prominence, to a point where this is flagged up as a concern for the 2019 inspection framework. It is also feasible now, after four years, that schools are beginning to see issues with their earlier decisions and are making adjustments.

One big structural change in 2014 was to put emphasis on the classroom as the prime place where good or better teaching and learning is seen as addressing the needs of all individuals. Therefore work has to be well planned, well delivered, activities engaged with, feedback given and supportive, developmental feedback afterwards.

In which case, the class teacher becomes the conduit through which SEND decisions are effected, with enhanced responsibility. Consider for a moment the position regarding Performance Related Pay (PRP) where a teacher can be held responsible for the outcomes of all groups of learners.

Teachers need to know their children very well, to be able to personalise interventions and commentaries. The deployment of available support, for specific purpose, with defined, checkable outcomes, will be essential. However, as the highest trained person in the classroom, the teacher may reasonably be expected to take the greater burden of the most challenging learning needs, while the support does just that, supports other learners.
All aspects need to be considered, starting with the appropriateness of the task, or the necessity to adapt, the need for support to achieve an appropriate outcome.

Within the task, the deployment of staff to be the eyes and ears, with the capacity to intervene appropriately to need will be essential. It will become an essential skill to spot and deal with issues as they arise to smooth the learning path. These interventions will need to be noted in some way. Therefore a methodology needs to be considered. In the first instance, the exercise book could become a part of the dialogue of concern, noting advice given, as well as clear, readable, understandable feedback. A secondary need will be to keep a track of teacher thinking, within and between lessons, through post it notes, amended planning, or diary format.

The teacher needs to get better at initial investigation of issues.
 
In addition, within the 2014 NC, the idea of levelness gave way to yearness. I blogged about this, from 2013, as I could see considerable potential pitfalls, especially for children who didn’t “make the grade” in the previous year. This may have been further exacerbated as teachers chose to stay in the same year group for a few years, to make use of their need to get to grips with yeargroup requirements.

Primaries are possibly in a much more difficult position, in that the new National Curriculum is very year-group based, with the assessment criteria as articulated, to know and understand the year group requirements. The use of the phrase “Secondary ready” cast an implied level of expectation against the achievements at year six. The rhetoric to date seems to suggest whole cohorts moving at the same speed. Topics are also relatively year group specific, which could cause issues if a child is either slower or faster than their cohort at learning in a specific subject. It is arguable that for Primary schools, level-ness has been replaced by year-ness.  So measurement of progress will be against year group expectations. Within the documentation, it is possible to infer the hierarchy of expectation, so schools may do that to ensure that their learners are tracked against the new criteria.

Where schools have been freed from the need to use levels and asked to create their own systems, those which have been shared through social media like Twitter have to date looked very much like levelness in a different form. And they always will, because the schemes shared have been recording sheets to keep a track of children’s performance.

And that’s my main issue. Subjects have hierarchical skills, which have to be introduced, practiced and embedded in produced work. Levelness articulated the hierarchy of skills and allowed this within whole class tasks and topics, with all learners challenged at a personal level, in the best practice. Level and grade criteria support expectation, planning, in-lesson interventions, reformulating of challenge to need, feedback, both oral and written, then food for thought after the lesson.

Year-ness will do that, but I have a slight worry that the articulation of achievement within the new system at Primary level has the potential to become a new system created barrier to learning for a number of vulnerable learners.
We had a system that could have been tweaked to make it more coherent, challenging, robust and acceptable through the system.
​
We may embed new issues. I hope that I am wrong.
​

 
All classes are mixed ability, even a set or streamed group, so creates an internal dynamic that needs to be accommodated; from prior records, simple starter assessments to confirm or ask questions, to seek to refine planning that allows appropriate imparting of information and learning challenges, both of which may be subtly altered in delivery through engagement with individual or group needs.

This is articulated in another blog; 65, based on the teacher standards.

Not all Special Needs get identified early. Some become more obvious as school challenges get harder. Some may have a source outside school, but which impacts in the setting, eg social and emotional needs.

Individual responses will offer challenges and cause concern. This may multiply over time, if established as a seeming pattern of response. Investigation and recording of the developing situation informs a discussion with the school SENCo. Not to do so might result in a request to do so over the next period of time. This delay can be the source of irritation in a teacher who wishes an immediate remedy.

From 2013
·         SEND is no longer “someone’s job”, it is everyone’s job…

Training is an interesting issue, in that there are and will be significant calls from all sides for “more training”. The availability of external staff is likely to be seriously strained in the near future, as all schools ask for the same personnel. I can see a number of options addressing these needs.

Local specialists (possibly including Special School staff) to create fact sheets available to all local schools, to address possible concerns across a range of needs, ASD, ADHD, SALT, OT as an example.

• In-house solutions 1. Some special needs in learning can be evidenced against the outcome of younger children. Therefore, by definition, the expertise is in-house. Exemplar portfolios will help with decision making, if they incorporate both a statement of what’s evident and a description of potential next steps. In “old money” a level 2 child in year five is operating on a par with an average year 2 child. By talking with the year 2 teacher, the professional dialogue will offer insights into routes. In a separate system, it may be necessary to make links with feeder schools.
• In house solutions 2. The school SENCo, if (s)he has undertaken the required training, should be in a position to offer the broad-brush explanations necessary for class-based colleagues.
• Planning for learning needs to look at the dynamics as well as the fixed points. The plan, based on expectation, should prompt thinking on the hoof, ensuring interactions that result on lessons being tweaked to the evident needs.

The basic principle of SEND, know your children well, and that would be my suggestion for the 2019 inspections; how well do schools know and support their children’s needs?

It could be that simple…

If modelling thinking is a key element of teaching, why do we appear to remove concrete apparatus when the mathematical concepts start to get more difficult?

Based on an earlier blog: https://chrischiversthinks.weebly.com/blog-thinking-aloud/talking-maths

It would be interesting to know when the concrete apparatus is withdrawn from the teacher explanation repertoire, as this can be seen as only useful for SEN children, yet, used effectively, can enable even more able learners to make connections through very clear visual manipulation. This can be demonstrated through the use of Dienes base 10 material to explore place value and four rules with decimals to three places, using the 1000 block to represent 1.

How do you know what a child is thinking unless you ask them directly to explain something?

We have become used to Talk for Writing, so why not Talk for Maths? If teachers and children engage in learning dialogue, the teacher can get a better view of how the children are thinking and the learners might become more secure in their willingness to have a go, especially when facing novel situations. We also talk of it being ok to make mistakes, especially in the context of Growth Mindset thinking. I would suggest that an openness to dialogue underpins GM, in that a child should be able to share insecurities and to be able to talk through a resolution. Learning to think and talk is an important stage in being able to do so internally, from the scaffolds developed through discussion and manipulation.

The early days of my teaching career were in a school that focused its approach on the work of two key figures in mathematics; it helped that the head was a County adviser for maths, so we also benefitted from regular visits by his colleagues in the inspectorate.

There were two key elements highlighted, logic and modelling mathematical thinking supported by continuous use of structured materials. The work of Zoltan Dienes was central, embodied in the structured approach created by Harold Fletcher, whose workbooks were the spine for mathematical activities by the children. For both, we were given the key background texts to read and understand. In this way, we avoided falling into the trap of just doing the activity booklets, as both the teacher guides and the senior staff accentuated the central place of concrete apparatus. This, in itself, was accentuated through staff training as a group or 1:1 coaching to need.

From https://www.stem.org.uk/elibrary/resource/30000 an extract of Fletcher’s background.

Harold Fletcher was seen as an outstandingly gifted teacher and educationalist. While he was always a firm believer in children being able to calculate accurately, he found from his own teaching that they could achieve remarkable results in other aspects of mathematics. Harold Fletcher considered the mathematics he wanted children to learn under six strands:

Number Pattern Shape Pictorial Representation Measurement Algebraic Relations.

With the help of a team of experienced teachers and educationalists, Harold Fletcher wove these strands into a teaching sequence which was called Mathematics for Schools. Examples of classroom activities are used to describe the mathematics, complete with teacher dialogue, diagrams and outcomes from recording.

Each element of number, addition, subtraction, division and multiplication along with place value was developed showing the use of concrete materials and styles of notation (many of which would be seen later in the Framework for Teaching Mathematics (NNS; National Numeracy Strategy).

​

Shape begins with an introduction to solid shapes before bringing in 2 dimensional or plane shapes. This is followed with measuring, area, capacity and volume before concluding with symmetry and tessellations. As with all aspects of the series it was stressed that concrete materials should still be used.

Pictorial Representation focused on students, from an early age being able to collect information, record it in pictures and most of all, think about it and use it for further number practice. The foundations for graphs were introduced before dealing with them further in Algebraic relationships. A final section on “How can I help my child?” contained some do’s and don’ts. A pdf of a parent guide is available from the STEM site above.

The second key character in my mathematical education as a teacher was Zoltan Pal Dienes (Pal anglicized to Paul). Looking up some detail, I came across his relatively recent obituary.

​

DIENES, Dr. Zoltan Paul Obituary from http://www.zoltandienes.com/obituary/

Age 97, of Wolfville, Nova Scotia, passed away peacefully on January 11, 2014. Zoltan Dienes, internationally renowned mathematician and educator, was both a public figure and a much loved family man.

Zoltan was born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1916, son of Paul and Valeria Dienes. His early years were spent in Hungary, Austria, Italy and France. He always had a fascination with mathematics, even hiding behind a curtain to hear his older brother’s maths lesson, for which he was deemed too young!

At 15 he moved to England. He received his Ph.D. from the University of London in 1939. Zoltan understood the art and aesthetics of mathematics and his passion was to share this with teachers and children alike.

He was fascinated by the difficulties many people had in learning mathematics and wanted others to see the beauty of it as he did. Consequently, he completed an additional degree in psychology in order to better understand thinking processes. He became known for his work in the psychology of mathematics education from which he created the new field of psychomathematics.

Referred to as a “maverick mathematician”, Zoltan introduced revolutionary ideas of learning complex mathematical concepts in fun ways such as games and dance, so that children were often unaware that they were learning mathematics – they were having a wonderful, exciting, creative time and longing for more. He invented the Dienes Multibase Arithmetic Blocks and many other games and materials that embodied mathematical concepts.
​

According to a Montana Mathematics Enthusiast monograph from 2007, “The name of Zoltan P. Dienes stands with those of Jean Piaget and Jerome Bruner as a legendary figure whose theories of learning have left a lasting impression on the field of mathematics education…

Dienes’ notion of embodied knowledge presaged other cognitive scientists who eventually came to recognize the importance of embodied knowledge and situated cognition – where knowledge and abilities are organized around experience as much as they are organized around abstractions. Dienes was an early pioneer in what was later to be called sociocultural perspectives and democratization of learning.”

I had a wry smile when I realised that his initials are ZPD, which is immortalised in the work of Vygotsky as the Zone of Proximal Development, something, I am sure that Dienes would have appreciated.

Conservation of number became a shot topic of conversation on social media during the week. It is, without a doubt an underlying concept in the learning of mathematics, akin to chunking of information to make subsequent thinking and manipulation easier.

Definition
Conservation of numbers means that a person is able to understand that the number of objects remains the same even when rearranged.
What is conservation of number?

• Conservation of number - the logical thinking ability to recognise that the numerical value of an object remains invariant with physical rearrangement - is a fundamental "cognitive milestone" during children's development (Crawford, 2008 p. 1). 
  
  
• The concept of conservation was developed by Jean Piaget during the mid-1900s, who claimed it as "concrete operational" and, therefore, "unattainable" until children are of 7 or 8 years old (Halford & Boyle, 1985, p. 165). 

It is interesting visiting schools and classrooms, watching many numeracy lessons. It is often clear that children are regressing to counting from one, which suggests that they have not reached the conservation stage, even when dealing with relatively small numbers. This might be down to lack of modelling, therefore expectation, with high adult oversight and interaction.

Some of the materials being use for modelling may be less helpful, in that they might encourage children to start counting from one, for security.

Multilink or Unifix blocks are common in early classrooms. Where the mathematics takes children beyond tenness, breaking the chain into ten rods can be useful to accentuate that concept. It is heartbreaking to watch a child count, then have to restart the count because they have been interrupted. Making rods of ten would allow for interruptions and a means of continuity.

For this reason, I still have a preference for Dienes base ten equipment, as it allows early access to models of exchange, creating tens then hundreds. It accentuates place value and, using the function machine conceptualisation allows all four rules of number to be modelled effectively. With a visualiser attached to a class IWB, the modelling can be done on a large scale, enabling more to access. I recognise that in the days before such technology, there were visual limitations to modelling to large groups.

From Maths No Problem, the following accent on concrete apparatus seems to fit with this approach.

Concrete, pictorial, abstract (CPA) is a highly effective approach to teaching that develops a deep and sustainable understanding of maths in pupils. Often referred to as the concrete, representational, abstract framework, CPA was developed by American psychologist Jerome Bruner. It is an essential technique within the Singapore method of teaching maths for mastery.

Recently working with ITE trainees, in the conversation the idea of conceptualisation was raised. Using the simple example of 2+2=4, the trainees were challenged to explore the underlying necessary concepts to have a full grasp of the challenge. Twoness, fourness, addition (including synonyms) and equality, or balance, linked to balanced equations, eg 2+2=3+1. It was an eye opener to some.


​Race to the flat
A very simple activity that can be very effective in supporting rapid calculation could be called race to or from the flat.

As long as you have Dienes base 10 materials and dice, this can be developed to cater for a variety of needs.
The rules of each game are simply described.
·         Decide whether it’s a race to or from the flat (100 square). Decide whether, when the dice are thrown, the numbers are added together (any number of dice) or multiplied (two or three dice?).
·         Dienes materials available to each group, plus dice appropriate to the needs of the group.
·         Each child takes turns to throw the dice and calculate the sum or product.
·         This amount is then taken from the general pile and placed in front of the child. The calculation can be recorded eg 3+4=7. This can provide a second layer of checking.
·         If playing race from the flat, the child starts with ten ten rods, then takes an appropriate amount from these.
·         Subsequent rounds see pieces added to the child’s collection; recorded as needed, eg round 2, 5+2=7 (7+7=14; the teacher should see one ten and four ones)
·         The first child to or from the flat is the winner.
Altering the number of dice alters the challenge.

An extension could be a race to the block (1000 cube), or from the block, each child starts with ten 100 squares. If multi-sided dice, or different numbers of dice are available, the challenge alters yet again.

I came across some notes from some years ago, where I sought to put together examples from Dienes to enable colleagues to utilise the system to support their maths teaching.

They open their eyes, they sense the world, they look, they listen, they feel, they taste, they smell.
They see apparent chaos around them with a central feature, a parent’s face, their voice, their sustenance.
They respond, through crying, gradually having some muscle control and smiling, making responsive sounds.
It all takes time, but, somehow, while we can only engage with their externalising, their brains and bodies are developing in very sophisticated ways.
They start to interact with their world; their life journey of experiencing and making some sense of these experiences.
 
Each of us carries around the distillation of our passing experiences, formal, some sustained like years in education, or training programmes, many informal, some fleeting experiences, others based on life, our families in childhood, then our friendship groups and personal decisions about partners and life location.

Every one of these experiences impacts on us, some as they are pleasurable, others because they are traumatic. It can be easier to recall life’s highlights or low points than the more mundane aspects of our lives, as the significant events are our life “landmarks”; transitions almost. While our memories do alter over time and recreating earlier life can sometimes lead to embellishment, at any point in time, we are the sum of the parts.

Recently exploring my earlier life through looking at locality maps, it was clear to me that in geographical terms, the bulk of my life to the age of seven was restricted to a distance of around one mile from home, with occasional school holidays spent with more distant family. From the age of five, this was often independent and outside with friends; perhaps a luxury for today’s children.

My world expanded exponentially when we became £10 Poms, sailing to Australia via stops allowing visits to Pompeii, Athens, Aden, Columbo, Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney, followed by the train journey to Brisbane. Five and a half weeks of watching out for dolphins, whales and flying fish. Playing deck quoits and other novel games. Watching the sellers with their fully laden, colourful canoes arrive beside the ship with their trinkets hoping for a sale, goods and money exchanged via ropes and baskets. Children and adults prepared to dive for coins thrown from the boat. It was interesting at the time, although my adult self can see it as demeaning. It was certainly “eye opening”. There was a very different world from the seemingly grey experiences that had preceded it.

Life has certainly happened since then. I have blogged about it, highs and lows, as I remember them. I won’t rehearse the features now, but it is worth reflecting that life memories are filtered through forgetting, as well as remembering.

On 13.09.18 I tweeted that I was reflecting on the following: -
We’re all constantly creating our internal models, developing them as new information appears. Challenging this creates internal tension; destabilising for some. Learning how to accommodate and adapt to circumstance has enabled ideas to progress; a life skill.

This followed a day when I worked with ITT trainees, followed by a session with their mentors. Within the room of some twenty nine trainees, there was clear evidence that some elements of their new experiences were causing internal tensions; the personal, getting to know their context and everyone and everything within it that might impact on their professional lives; the demands of studying and running a household, some with much reduced incomes; the detail of the academic information that they were receiving, some after a significant gap since their degree. Accommodation and adaptation take time, which, at this point in their existence is at a premium.

Children are learning to take in information, learning about learning, at the same time as having to accommodate to a multi-faceted world. There is a truism that young children are naturally inquisitive, prepared to try things out, familiarising themselves with novel experiences, through what we often call “play”, which they then describe as “fun”.

As an adult, I often engage in familiarisation activity; a new camera, smart phone or laptop requires familiarisation. For a while, I “play” with them to see what they can do, in my case, using prior knowledge that comes from earlier experiences with the same technology. I am sure that my camera, smart phone and laptop can do significantly more than my current uses, but, for now each serves the purposes for which I want them.

If I am listening to a speaker, as I will at an education conference, or in a university lecture from a colleague, I can be distracted by a single point that triggers a line of thinking; it resonates or challenges a previously held piece of understanding. This may lead to a bit of note making or doodling an idea trying not to forget the thought from “the moment”, which can happen with just trying to listen and hold onto everything that has been said. The single nugget can form the basis for further reflection, discussion or reading, leading to a change in my understanding.
​

In the same way, school lessons offer a similar scenario with new information being shared hour by hour. The difference could be that in school it is every hour, whereas an adult has the luxury of taking or making “time out to think”. Children in school don’t necessarily have the opportunity to reflect, unless it is built into the plans. It is to be hoped that every lesson offers something of quality to think about, to talk about and perhaps to make notes, or write about in order to remember.

In the early days of school learning, learning to order and organise thoughts is a key element, which is supported by teacher organisation and presentation of the different curriculum elements, ensuring that necessary links are made overt between aspects of learning, so that children are not left floundering with the bits of a jigsaw but no image within which to place the pieces. It is to be hoped, too, that learning in school might lead to extension in the home; appropriately set home activities can extend vocabulary or lead to further discovery. See talk homework.

It is incumbent on the adult generation to offer life opportunities to children, in and out of school, that allow them to participate in the experience, to explore with whatever is their current capability, and to articulate their thinking, enabling an adult to engage further with questions or clarification. The act of learning can be “fun” to children. They need to learn that learning is not something that is done to them, but that they are active participants in constructing their own schemas.

As a headteacher, I used this ideal as the basis for the school teaching and learning policy, which is on the blogsite. It was simplified into one diagram, as follows.  
​

​
At any point in time, we are the product of our experiences. If they are broad and supported by articulate adults prepared to unpick inconsistencies and add further value to the experience, the child can thrive, with the opposite also having an element of truth, although we may have to accept that children can succeed "despite their home/school experience".

If a child lives in a knowledge/language-rich environment they will experience and learn to use a wide range of conceptual words. The Bristol language studies of 1971 led by Gordon Wells showed the impact on less rich environments. It has implications for the language rich environment of schools, too, especially if the home contexts are known to be less rich.

Schools and parents, within their communities, are partners in bringing children into their world. Learning to work effectively together is essential.

Teaching and learning are two sides of the same coin; on one side, the teacher, the other is the learner. In one lesson the emphasis might be on the teacher to share essential information, in another it is for the learners to demonstrate current achievement. It’s a dynamic, fluid scenario.
​

Everything that is meant to happen in a classroom is determined by the teacher, as it always has been.

The teacher is the lead thinker in the classroom, responsible for the analyse-plan-do-review-record cycle as it affects each learner.

Looking at any records that are passed from school to school or internally, is an essential start point for thinking.

The teacher is the organiser of the space, resources and interpreter of the curriculum (knowledge), divided up into appropriate sized chunks to offer on the journey. This journey needs to consider the whole year of journeys, ensuring that all end up at the planned destination. It’s no good starting off in the hopes of getting through everything. Some slippage is inevitable; schools are very good places for creating detours. If it’s caused by bad planning, that’s the teacher responsibility, not the learners. It is imperative to note developing gaps, to seek opportunities to “bridge the gap” at an appropriate time. (See planning blog)

Their ability to weave a good narrative, to speak articulately, using and extending accessible vocabulary and in a register that enables the learners to be partners in the development of their own interpretation. Artefacts, images and modelling are essential aids in supporting learners in creating their own working images; dual coding.

The teacher is also the team leader, especially if there are other adults involved; they need to know what’s expected of them, working under the direction of the teacher.

It’s the teacher plan that determines how everything will run. The teacher is also the determinant of appropriate behaviours for learning in that space. They can appear, on occasion, to be judge, jury and executioner; it is a position of some responsibility.

The learners, at the outset, don’t know the journey, so they need to be shown an outline, an overview, so that all subsequent parts have a logical place, with checks at the beginning that they are equipped to make a start, followed by regular progress/retention checks on the way that they are “keeping up”, or that they are “getting it”.

There are different structural demands within different pieces of work; an example might be the difference between a letter and a report. Each has structural constituent elements that need to be demonstrated within an acceptable finished product. These could be considered as the “success criteria” for each activity; what the teacher is looking for as an outcome.

Using visualisers during a lesson, to show what you are seeking, by using child examples, is an excellent means of sharing emerging quality, especially if it is always supported by further developmental discussion; modelling improvement.

There is subject specific knowledge. If this has to be retained for future reference/use, it can be useful to create aides-memoire, memory joggers, that attach to the edge of books/pages, that can be flipped out to need, especially if spellings are challenging. They can become, over time, if learners are shown how to be ordered and organised, useful aids for revision; personal knowledge organisers.

Understanding whether a learner has mastered essential knowledge is often judged through oral or written responses. Where this demonstrates language needs these can also be highlighted on flip sheets; eg write answers in complete sentences.

Flip sheets offer continuity of expectation, clarity of focus and brings the learner into the centre of their learning. (See blog on exercise books as personal organisers)

Teachers can’t remember the learning needs of every child in every teaching group. This is exaggerated in Secondary, where 200 plus children might be seen in a week.

The closer that a learner need can be tracked over time, the more chance there is that individuals will make progress.

It shouldn’t be down to a flip of the coin.
​

So, to summarise
​
·         Plan long, medium and short with different emphases on what’s recorded and share with supporting adults. Organise the “knowledge journey” developmentally.
·         Order and organise space, resources and consider the available time.
·         Pitch and pace each lesson to known needs of the curriculum and the learners.
·         Set learning tasks that provide some challenge.
·         Share outcomes as learner models of expectation within and between lessons.
·         Evaluate throughout, ensuring continuity of expectation.
·         Checks en route, memory, use and application in challenge.
·         Simple personal record systems of developing vocabulary and presentation needs.
·         Books to become personal learning records.
·         Know your children as fully as possible, recognising that you can’t see exactly what they are thinking.
 

Let’s try to put some things in perspective. Schools, in England and Wales, will soon reopen, teachers will receive their classes for the next academic year and the annual diary will start and pan out, plus or minus a few hiccups.
There are four areas of SEN description in the 2014 framework

• Communication and Interaction
• Cognition and Learning
• Social, Emotional and Mental Health
• Sensory and/or Physical needs.

The vast majority of children will arrive with their past educational history well documented, showing their earlier achievements and some areas where there appear to be continuing concerns.

A very few will arrive with an Education Health and Care Plan, EHCP, in place, with specific needs identified and methodologies and support required for them to achieve the needs. This may, or may not, include some statement of dedicated teaching time or adult support.

Others will already be highlighted on the school SEN register, with earlier needs identified. That these last two groups are known ahead of time allows the receiving teacher to prepare and plan, anticipating their ongoing need within the class plans.

There may well be some children whose needs only become apparent during the new academic year. This could be as a result of external trauma, resulting in unexpected responses to learning situations, or it could be an unspotted earlier need that becomes apparent as challenges become harder to accommodate.

If, after a couple of weeks back in class, with new children, one or two are causing some unforeseen concern, it is important that every class teacher and additional adult recognises their place as front-line eyes and ears of T&L need.

Changes to the organisation of SEND provision have been in train for the past few years, during which time I have blogged, as I have come across useful information. These blogs are archived within my blog, see Contents but I will refer to aspects to provide an introduction.

In this post, I am not looking to describe the range of individual needs that might be encountered. There are many expert colleagues who are much more able to offer insights into the specifics of individualised SEN(D). I have focused on issues as they affect mainstream school teachers, which can be summarised as developing a coherent, investigative approach that can fit with normal classroom practice, which is premised on the need to look, to reflect and record concerns to inform deeper conversations.

SEN is an area of teaching and learning where teacher expertise can easily be challenged.

A feeling of vulnerability, identifying a personal need can create a tension. There is always the possibility of meeting a child whose needs fall outside previous experience; the truism that “you’ve met one child with autism, so you’ve met one child with autism” can exemplify many areas of SEN.

For known needs, it is essential that earlier information is available, read and planned to be actioned within the new class organisation, and where needed, specific advice sought, considered and planned.

With any new class, there is a period of what I would call “calibration or sometimes recalibration”, the teacher challenge in learning being more generic, based on earlier reading of records and possibly earlier experiences with that year group. Outcomes show greater detail “in the moment”, resulting in more tailored responses, questioning and feedback/guidance. Outcomes also enable finer tuning of challenge levels and responses, as individual needs become apparent.

On entry into the formal learning situation, the staff eyes and ears should be alert to issues, noting down things that are said and done, to ensure that future reflections can be based on pattern finding or evidence across a range of issues. Evidence finding is the bread and butter of teacher life, in terms of interactions, questioning, feedback, support and outcomes.

General statements like, “x cannot read”, are unhelpful to discussion.

Investigating and sharing specifically what a child can and cannot do can lead to focused intervention, rather than general approaches.  Leaving a child in a situation where they are clearly failing, are seen to be failing and knowing that this is the case, is destructive to the child and to the teacher. Acknowledging specific issues and seeking the specific means to address the issues demonstrates a positive, professional approach.

There is no doubt that, when a teacher encounters a child who does not fit the “normal mould” that they are used to, that they may experience unease. Once a child enters school, it is less likely that concerns about potential special needs will be unknown, raised by parents or professionals, which hopefully have been followed up and investigated, so that, by the time a teacher encounters the child there may already be records with substantial supportive information available.

The journey to SEN decisions is likely to be a phased affair, especially with regard to learning issues and possibly over an extended timescale for many children, much to the frustration of parents and teachers.

“Getting a handle” on the problem can be a case of more structured investigation that may eventually lead to diagnosis, prescription and deciding on courses of action.

It is really important that teachers and other adults in class note down their concerns, from their earliest awareness, so that timely discussion with professional colleagues can distil patterns, suggest alternative courses of action and also avoid delay should there be a need to refer to an external form of support, eg the school Educational Psychologist (EP). Unless there is a track record of concern, the EP may well request that the classteacher undertakes activities that have already been tried, but the outcomes not recorded. This can add to unnecessary delays in addressing key issues.

Action is also embedded in classroom relationships and these need to be carefully considered. All children need teacher time, as they are the key strategic decision maker.

Children seem to know where they are in comparison with their peers. They can judge for themselves those who can achieve in an area and can also highlight what they can’t achieve, across a wide range of subjects. This can lead to self-esteem issues, to go along with their understanding of a learning struggle. Children know when they are being given easier things to do, so presenting appropriately challenging activities, with commensurate scaffolded support is important. Allocating a teaching assistant to an issue can create a mutually dependent relationship, with a child’s independence and decision-making capacity being limited by constant adult support. It needs careful oversight and review.

The children with the greatest need, need the best teaching.

The class teacher must teach these groups or individuals, to ensure quality teaching is available to them and also to deepen their understanding of the child(ren)’s needs.

Where this is the case, reference to teachers of earlier years can provide pedagogical and practical advice. In many ways, teaching standard 2, progress and outcomes, is THE key standard to support teacher understanding. What is the anticipated learning journey of children from early years through to year 6? While we know that learning is never linear, concerns about a child’s learning is often judged against such an expectation.

This crib sheet at the header might support record collection and prepare the ground for discussion. The centre box suggests an approach.

Teacher judgement plays a significant part. If a teacher has never met an issue, or makes simplistic inappropriate judgements, then the subsequent learning journey for the child will become more complex, with the potential for regression, rather than progress, as the relationships can become strained.

So, from a classroom perspective, I’d offer the following:-

·         Start a RADIO* file on individuals who are raising worries. *Record of Actions, Discussions or Decisions, Interventions and Outcomes.
·         Annotate plans regularly with individual concerns.
·         Annotate exercise books with appropriate supportive commentary.
·         Make diary notes in the RADIO file to deduce any pattern arising.
·         All adults become “spotters”. Keep a post it note record of things that happen in the lesson, to add to the RADIO. Ask any support adults to do the same.
·         The record should allow the teacher to create a proper narrative, with action, outcome and judgements/decisions, refined actions. There should be a record of planning adaptation.

At this point, the class teacher can take the beginnings of a case study to the SENCo, thus avoiding the generic conversation that starts, “X has a problem with…” or “Y just doesn’t get it…” which then needs to go through the process outlined above. By adopting this approach early, and similar systems are embedded in many schools, valuable time for vulnerable learners is saved.

Neither the class teacher, nor the SENCo is not being asked to be a diagnostician, but an investigator and describer of learning, behaviours and outcomes. The TA or other adult support can provide additional insights into issues. The broadest view available will support decision making.

Stepping up a notch.

If the teacher has got to the point where the child’s needs exceed their expertise or experience, they may feel the need to involve another adult, an experienced colleague such as the SENCo, to seek advice and solutions. There is nothing wrong in saying that you need help with a specific child’s needs. By asking for advice, broader school awareness is raised.
This stage was previously called School Action (Plus), and may involve deeper exploration of the issues supported by a range of external expertise, all of which will be subject to reports to the school, enhancing the available evidence.

I’d expect some kind of agreed internal plan to be developed, with the focus on actions, from the teacher, to seek to effect specific change; to keep a further diary of interventions, and outcomes, over relatively short timescales. These Personal Action Plans need to be seen embedded in plans and visible in practice. They should be clear descriptors, accessible and shared with parents at each stage. The focus on classroom action is essential. Progress should be capable of being measured in some form. They were called Individual Education Plans, IEPs, but could sometimes appear to be disregarded in practice.

Regular reviews and refinements eventually build to a more substantial case study file, which is likely to be then supported with reports from a range of additional professionals.
These files start with the teacher spotting and recording needs over a time scale, investigating anomalies, so that the support systems around them can offer advice based on detail.
That’s teaching…
 
SEND is often linked to Inclusion practice
Inclusion can sometimes be seen as an add-on to “normal” teaching activity.
It is possible to argue that inclusion, far from being an add-on,
is an integral part of practice,
explicit in the detail of the standards for teachers.
Teachers will go to work each day to secure the best opportunities
for each and every child in their class.
Inclusion occurs in the best of teaching experiences.
 
Inclusion is not something that is done to people.
It is an aspect of ethos, a principle and, as such, exists or it doesn’t.
An inclusive environment is one where people matter,
their needs and aspirations are not only known but are also supported.
Therefore, it is a college of individuals which cares for each other,
the collegiate approach.
Inclusion is an ethos based on love and care,
with the opposite extreme leading to exclusion and a child being ostracised.
An inclusive ethos should allow individuals to express themselves
and, at times, to articulate different opinions.
Openness and articulacy can support the resolution of issues more easily.
Inclusive organisations often support discussion and resolution
through mediation and allowing advocacy for vulnerable members.
 
All school staff are the eyes and ears of the organisation.
In this approach, early identification of concerns,
such as behaviour change, physical hurt and absence
can lead to early intervention, by the most suitable means,
sometimes external to the school.
School staff have a responsibility to keep children safe.
Intervention can be testing for the adult,
but to ignore warning signs puts everyone at risk.
 
Every child is unique, demonstrably so, educationally,
physically, emotionally, socially, though heritage and life experience.
It is possible to perceive thirty different needs in a class of thirty children.
That puts a strain on a teacher’s organisational abilities
and their ability to engage with each individual.
However, differentially challenging activities can lead to deeper engagement
with small groups and individuals, where whole class teaching cannot.
 
Differentiation has been a significant challenge to teachers,
as it implies the need to plan for several layers of ability within groups.
Some schools organise in sets or streams, but it is arguable that even in sets there
is a continuum of ability, even if it is narrowed.
One only has to ask the simple question, “What’s the point in being bright in this classroom?”
to see that some may not be sufficiently challenged.
Challenge implies expectation,
where the teacher has analysed the child’s needs and can see what that the next
learning step is.
Expectation can lead to aspiration,
with targets being set slightly higher, but with support.
Teachers need to be aware that task
completion does not automatically mean success in learning,
but the combination of learning processes with positive outcomes is energising
to both the child and the teacher.
We all want the “light-bulb moment”.
 
Inclusion should imply personalised approaches to learning and teaching,
with individualised challenges for children
to enable them to become engaged learners and active producers,
rather than consumers.
 
Assessment, analysis and reflection are embedded within practice,
supporting individual and institutional progress.
The mantra for each school and each individual within a school should be,
 
“Inclusion is what we do.”


More reading?
​Practical SEN(D) Linking ideas into a coherent whole.
SEND 2014; possible class teacher Crib sheet.

If there is one word that I’d like to see feature more during the coming academic year, it would be challenge.

Challenge in itself holds together all the disparate elements that appear to make up the teaching lexicon, including resource and space need, differentiation, activity, thinking, talking, engagement, intervention, evaluation and assessment and resilience.

Challenge, in different forms, describes the purpose of action; trying to do something, which may be just a little harder or different to anything that has been tried before.

When faced with a problem, a difficult task, this can test earlier knowledge, by bringing to the fore earlier efforts and successes. The comparison between earlier and current needs can enable the practicalities of overcoming the perceived obstacle to become clearer, with a series of practical tasks to be accomplished. Problems can then become achievable. If, during the course of action, including dialogue, it becomes clear that the proposed solution, although initially decided as the best course of action, is going awry, the evaluation of the current need might lead to decisions to stall, to review, to seek additional information from external expertise, before continuing. These actions become useful life skills.

Working together, in itself, can be a challenge, in that collective decisions might be subject to disagreement, including opposition. The ability to negotiate through difficulty is another human need, occasionally requiring a moderating voice to be available.

There is a simple question that, to me, indicates the quality of challenge; what have they got to think about? This can vary from relatively simple recall of earlier facts through to dealing with an overarching challenge.

Activity may hold some challenges and there are some activities that have to be in place as practice tasks in order to undertake more significant challenges. In earlier incarnations of the Design Technology scheme in the National Curriculum, these were resource tasks. The principle can be applied across all curriculum areas. Of course, there is an easy way to ensure some level of concentration on these tasks. Simply ensure that children are aware of the purpose; we’re doing this SO THAT we can use it in the next challenge.

Resources, including space can be a challenge, but it’s feasible to consider challenge within the available resources. Tables can be moved to create different working spaces, covered, as needed for different activities. Resources availability, if planned ahead of time, in labelled boxes or drawers, can enable independence in retrieval and return.
I’d want to frame challenge over time, so that the timetable, in itself, does not become a limiting factor. Current timetables can appear to preclude continuity of challenge, ensuring that there’s enough available to fill the available hour. This can push some to discrete activities that might be less challenging. Quality outcomes can take a little longer, especially for some children. It might be better to have one finished piece of quality, as a baseline, rather than a series of unfinished pieces.

I said at the top that challenge incorporates other areas that make up teaching. Challenge is set by the teacher. In the early days with a class, the challenge may be generic, as a means of getting to know how each child thinks and reacts. Over time, this becomes more refined, as the teacher recalibrates expectations to the new group.  In so doing, the interactions are also likely to become more refined and meet the needs of each learner. In another blog, I propose that differentiation is informed dialogue.

The challenge of keeping going, in order to produce a piece of quality work, can require different levels of resilience, but might also require different layers of coaching intervention. This act, in itself, underpins assessment; how much could x do independently and in what areas did x need?

Ongoing challenge can be provided by low level sharing of developing outcomes; reading out loud an interesting fact or sentence; a child sharing how they have solved a maths problem. Visualisers or iPads linked to IWB can help to make this more overt.

Challenge can enhance dialogue, including the use of vocabulary appropriate to the task. Enabling different layers of planning and preparation provides the groundwork for taking first steps, including identifying the knowledge and skills that are likely to be needed.

At no point does a challenge curriculum divorce from the need to directly teach discrete elements. This has always been a need, it’s the simplest way to get information across to someone who needs it, and, in the context of learning, the knowledge and skills become “resources” in themselves. The challenge is to use and apply the knowledge and skills in the problem context, which, in itself, becomes the test.

Thinking a little further, I’d propose such things as Learning Objectives and Success Criteria are shared at the beginning of the challenge journey, as part of the overview of how the week, fortnight, half term will pan out. It will be the overview “so that”, sharing the eventual aim. Discrete pieces of resource tasking could have discrete LO/SC, eg how to set out a letter.

Children should be able to tell someone what they’re learning and why. That shouldn’t be the challenge.

It’s the summer holidays 2018 and the EduTwittersphere is alight with two main topics; not as one might imagine, the future of the world order and whether we have food come March 2019. No, it is whether and why schools exclude (with some asking if it’s enough) and what appears to be a move by a Government minister to dictate further what is taught, and possibly how.

There is a regular mantra that is bandied about, that “anyone can teach”, and it has been in the back of my mind throughout, trying to differentiate between teaching and being a teacher. I would argue that knowledge is collegiate; the sharing of what one person knows enables others to enlarge their capacities. In teaching, there is both personal (knowledge) and professional (pedagogy) capacity.

Reflecting on a blog where I explored the teaching standards, entitled 24652, I separated out the personal aspects of “teaching” from the longer-term thinker about progressive development, making subtle changes to ongoing plans.

In different areas of interest, especially in nature conservation I have met a variety of people who can “teach”; stand in front of an audience (class) and speak about something that they know. This “expert” has a certain “something”, either in terms of their demeanour, their voice, their apparent knowledge or their manner of delivery. They can “hold” the audience, sometimes in rapt silence, especially if they can involve the audience with something to look at or hold or enabling interaction in some other way. Some of the best speakers, with children, bring artefacts to handle, or possibly even live animals, which they might be invited to hold.

These people have an important story to tell and can get it across. They help to pique an interest, to deepen involvement and to really engage children in the world of specific knowledge, much of which will be transient, but which, for some, might be the start of a life-long interest.

They are very useful in that regard, as they can offer an expertise that extends the audience experience, including the class teacher.

So, these people can teach, within their specific area of expertise, but, to my mind they are not yet teachers. There are much more nuanced decisions to be made that differentiate a “teach” from a teacher.

The “second level” of teacher thinking centres around the needs of the learners, rather than just the narrative being shared.

This is the 24652 dynamic. Know your children, plan effectively (over time), engage with their learning, tweak to needs, check if they understand; know them better, new baseline.

Teachers are judged on their children’s progress and outcomes (2). To know and understand he needs of children starts from a generalised understanding which is coloured-in through experience within classrooms, working with a wide range of children. This can also vary significantly between school contexts, where the demographic mix of the class and the community can create a very different dynamic. Even within a school, year groups differ, so even a teacher who may only have taught a narrow range of ages may not fully understand the needs of a different year group. I would argue that this may have an impact on thinking about SEN, particularly in the context of year-group based curricular expectations. A child who “doesn’t get it” might be a particular challenge to some, possibly less-experienced teachers.

Equally, Secondary colleagues may not understand Primaries and vice versa, but this can also be an issue within a Primary school, if the Infants and Juniors are ideologically separate.

Being ordered and organised, being able to plan (4), over time is an important aspect of being a teacher, creating medium term plans, based on a good understanding of the starting needs, but also adapting these to the developing needs as they manifest themselves, as they will, while the children are working on challenge within their tasks.

To me, the most significant parts of the teaching standards are probably standards 6 and 5, which, although articulated as “Assessment (6) and “Adaptation (5)”, which can be effected between lessons at a generalised level, “did they “get it”, what do I do next?”, but which, if interpreted as the teacher “thinking on their feet, looking for prompt signs of learner discomfort” (6), leads to an engagement with any issues arising, coaching and support, or in more extreme cases, in-lesson adaptation to individual needs (5).

We are at the stage of a school year where teachers will, in a few weeks, be working with new classes.

While Primary teachers will get to know their children quite well, quite quickly, in relation to other classes they have had, Secondary colleagues may only see some classes a couple of times, so the individuals who haven’t made their current learning needs obvious may still be names, rather than people.

It is in the nature of interactions that the more frequent they are, the better you get to know the person(alities).

Some colleagues will move schools and be(come) aware of the nuanced differences between their new experience and their previous school(s). It can be a shock to be seen as an outstanding teacher in one context, only to find yourself challenged in another. The context can be a significant factor in perceived “success” as a teacher. ITE students can find the second practice more challenging if they have had the first in an “easier/nicer” school, especially if they are carrying the “high” grade potential with them.

Which leads on to the idea of the “Teachest”. These are the teachers who have taught for a while, have had experience across a wide age range, in different contexts, which enable them to cope with change, occasional difficult children (or colleagues), and who can, at the drop of a hat, magic up a very solid, or even a very good lesson, when covering for another colleague.

They have sought, filtered and adapted the best of their experiences to provide a nuanced “performance”, probably make teaching look easy, but also, at times, be unable to explain every aspect of their actions, because teaching is them, they are intuitive, but as a result of practicing their art/craft with embedded and ongoing reflection. They are and possibly always have been, reflective life-long learners, with a real excitement for their specific areas of interest, which they share, day in and day out.

In other words, they put all eight teacher standards into practice with ease, day in, day out.

It is this last descriptor to which I’d hope all teachers aspire. To develop to this phase, though, teachers need to pass through the other two, the “teach” and the teacher, with the teacher phase being the essential good stage, which is required of all teachers.

The “teachest” comes over time, but also the interrogation of experience as a self-development tool. The best “teachests” are also collegiate in their willingness to share and unpick their capabilities, to the benefit of less-experienced colleagues. These people are the bread and butter of continuous professional development, at no cost to any organisation. They teach teachers as well as children.
 
The skill of self-evaluation is the significant skill which can be shared with developing teachers. Focusing on the processes of development, rather than just passing on simple tips and hints, enables the developer to reflect on their own practice, so that tips and hints can be explored within a development dynamic.

A pack of tips and hints and bright ideas does not make a teacher. A set of pre-prepared worksheets doesn't make a curriculum. These things only work of they have clear purpose and the teacher is aware of potential issues, in order to intervene appropriately with children. I have seen more fail lessons arising from colleague generosity in sharing a plan, than from a teacher preparing their own.
​
A teacher thinks for themselves.

To some extent, teachers and “teachests” grow themselves, by regularly reflecting on new information and “sloughing off” aspects of the old, so that they can move forward with greater ease.

Sharing is caring; a simple mantra.

Collegiality is the hallmark of a successful staffroom. Shared expertise benefits everyone, ensuring that the children receive the best that a school can offer, which, in reality, is the best that any school can do.

Where it identifies the need for external support, this should be carefully considered, if it is to have a developmental collegiate impact.

Communication is key and this takes time. School leaders are responsible for how time is “demanded” for specific needs. Time should simply be allocated for quality talk between colleagues. That way, current reading can be shared, discussed and, where necessary, embedded in practice.

Love the ones you’re with. Make the best of the available talent. Support every adult associated with the school, including parents, partners in children’s progress.

Humane education, in professional hands, anyone?

For some time, I have worried that we have been in danger of over-scientising, or over-systematising teaching. There is a case that neuroscience has added to our understanding and that has to be for the best, but, in many ways, teaching has not altered since I first walked into a classroom in 1971, but as each generation comes to the role, they offer new vocabulary for older constructs. Relabelling doesn’t alter the essentials of the job.

It is essentially thinking and analysing available information, planning for progression in learning, presenting appropriately challenging information and learning opportunities, thinking during and between lessons, adapting to evident needs, recording those bits and pieces that are worthy of record, as aides memoire.

Of course, around these central elements lie further lists of sub-tasks, any of which can be grown, through over-systematising, into over-demanding activities, just to double-check the system.
​
The essence is analyse, plan, do review, record. Each step is a thinking step… and anything that detracts from that is to the detriment of the children’s learning.

When you walk into a classroom and wait for your class to arrive, you have compiled some thoughts ahead of time. You may have had some oral or written records from a preceding teacher, together with any other important information or data about their prior performance.

You’ll have organise the classroom to provide the most efficient arrangement of tables, that enables ease of movement, as well as good sight lines from different areas of the classroom. You will have ordered and organised resources; some at each table and more in labelled drawers for easy access and return. Reading corners, maths equipment, display boards or working walls will be evident. Much more besides will have been labelled or arranged in a display.

In addition, you will have considered the curriculum organisation for the period of time that you are responsible for the class, with a specific focus on those areas that will form the initial topics in each subject. The best planning is longer term to focus on the interaction of knowledge and skills as they develop and are reuse during the year. Being ordered and organised is the hallmark of good teaching.

The sharing of information has always been a central feature of good teaching. The quality of information sharing can be a variable, in that all information exists in a narrative that draws from the children’s prior experience, sifting and adding the new information after challenge or reflection.

If you need to collate the relevant information to be shared, that seems like an excellent idea, but the narrative sharing abilities of the teacher, the security and depth of the information, together with the articulacy of the adult will determine whether imagery is conjured in the minds of the receivers. If images are shared, that support the narrative, children can utilise recall or perhaps indulge in abstraction to further their own imagination.

Classroom vocabulary is closely connected with contextual experiences; if children’s home experiences are limited, this will have an impact on their understanding, compounded if the linguistic experience is also limited. Teaching and learning rely on words, embedding worldly concepts. The teacher is the generator of words, through the breadth and depth of experiences that they offer, inside and outside the classroom. Words, in some form, are needed to be able to interact with the world.

The interactions between teacher, other adult or children are key. Quality of questions, responses to their answers, follow-up questions for clarification, providing feedback in timely fashion, subtle adjustments or specific coaching and modelling might be needed in some cases.

Pitch of challenge, interaction and feedback are the equivalent of tailoring; a piece of clothing might be approximately the right size, but for individuals might require taking in or loosening, depending on how it is perceived to fit.

Teacher standards 6&5 describe these detailed actions, within the 24652 continuum; know your children, plan efficiently, interact and adjust to need, make decisions about subsequent learning. If planning was broader, over a longer timescale, with teachers making notes on next needs, it might decrease some anxiety about workload. Much planning is, in effect, continuous, with additional information added to need.

• Standards 6 and 5 are the key to getting closer to individual, group and class needs. The judgemental aspects of standard 6, between and within lessons, are effected through adaptations between lessons or within a lesson. That nuance can be lost in a delivery model. It is often evident in ITE trainees, who are focused on getting through the lesson more than the actual learning and getting to know the needs of individuals.
• Assessment, to my mind, has always meant knowing your children. It also means knowing the generic progression in each of the subjects that make up the Primary curriculum. Marrying the two together is the essence of good planning that embeds appropriate challenge for different needs.
• Planning is, at heart, a(n) hypothesis, a general descriptor of what will happen if all your prior judgements have been accurate.
• All plans should be subject to adjustment within the lesson, if, on the balance of evidence and the teacher judgement, individuals, groups or the whole class seem to be finding aspects harder or easier than expected. In-lesson interactions and oral and written feedback are likely to be influenced by these judgements.
• Teacher Standards 6&5 together effectively mean spot and deal with learning issues in a lesson.
• Reflection after the lesson, or period of lessons allows for future plans to be adjusted to outcomes. This could be in the form of “interleaving” or adjusting future demands to cater for known needs.

Every teacher is adrift with a boat load of children. They deserve good maps and the ability to captain their own ships with certainty. They carry a valuable cargo, who should be enjoying time to look around and take in the experiences as they pass, rather than being kept too busy to look, or only allowed to see the world through a small port hole.

The teacher, as a good captain, should also be looking out for the well-being of her team.
​
It’s not simple, it never has been simple and, given the complex nature of any group of humans, will never be a simple role; but it is still a great job and you get to be captain…!

Challenge, as a central concept, has been a part of my whole teaching career.

This was linked to knowing your stuff and being aware of children’s learning needs, with match and challenge, aka pitch, being the precursor of differentiation.

​In many ways, problems started, for some, when differentiation became a thing to do, resulting in a more activities-led approach, rather than the earlier more analytical approach. It embedded, in some practice, the need for different activities for different groups, creating an appearance of catering for different needs when there might be too little or too much challenge. The ease of downloading activities from the internet and easy reprographics aided and abetted this approach.

There are different layers of challenge, starting with the curriculum, where concepts might be simply introduced in one year-group, added to in subsequent years; a progressive building of knowledge. It does require, though, from the teacher, an awareness of previous learning, to be able to make appropriate links that enable recall to underpin the new information.
​
Challenge will be embedded in the introductory part of the lesson, where information is shared directly, orally, supplemented by visual or other means, aka dual coding, building a coherent narrative, developed further through careful question and answer to fine tune responses and ensure security. The extended vocabulary, exploring new concepts, must be linked to earlier understanding and linked vocabulary; it cannot be assumed that each child will make the links without them being made explicit; modelled retrieval practice, within and between lessons.
​

One of the significant pleasures in my work life in being enabled to unpick how a school works, is that the schools are invariably open and honest with me and are seeking the external view that might nudge them forward in their development. As each school is subtly different, that can mean that interrogation has to look in fine detail at different elements, to determine how they link and possibly how they either support or hinder aspects of growth.

I am also very visual in the way that I think about systems. I have to have the bigger picture, so that I can explore the constituent parts. Schools, after all, are systems, of interlocking systems, with the key one being the system that operates around each learner, so that they are enabled to make the best progress at that point in time. This also allows for those individuals for whom expectations of the whole group may not be applicable, as a result of issues specific to them. As teachers, we have to accept that life does affect learning patterns. It does for adults, so it does for learners and they are young, so may not yet have built their coping mechanisms.

There are many elements which go together to make up the complex event that we call learning.

Some commentators argue that you can’t “see” learning in a lesson, and yes, perhaps that, as a phenomenon is not easily visible, but, I think it is feasible to explore the learning intentions of the lesson and to qualitatively explore the learning environment, the experiences, the challenge and effort being demanded, so that it is possible to determine the likelihood of whether learning might be taking place at that point.

Knowing where the learners are at the beginning of the discrete series of experiences they will encounter though a series of lessons is essential, so that they will then be taken on a journey alongside the teacher, rather than the teacher running ahead and learners lagging behind in a long tail. Knowing where they are headed is important too. If the “map” is only ever in the teacher’s head, then learners are not aware of the destination, nor can they have an understanding of where they are on the journey. If one was to take a climbing analogy, as I have done in another post, from the base camp, we want to journey to a specific point, or pitch, where we can take stock before moving onto the next one, so that the journey as a whole is always within the learner’s understanding.
Having an understanding of what “getting there” might look like is also an essential element of the learning process. If this is not clear, then effort can be misdirected into other areas, which might have lesser impact on a learner outcome. For some, the journey to each point may need to be broken down further and they may require guidance on the way, so the leader/teacher/TA has to “drop back” to encourage and support. Some might like to “climb/run ahead”. If that is the case then the teacher has to determine whether this can be accomplished safely. They can’t fall off an exercise book, so it is probably very safe, but some teachers do supply limitations. This is the point at which real independence can be developed through appropriately set challenges.

Task Setting (What’s the challenge?)

Limitations can be embedded in the activities that are given to children. I looked at task setting in another post, and it is to this that I’d want to return, as it is, without doubt, the determinant of progress. Real learning, at least to me, requires embedding through use and application of what is known into overcoming a challenge and solving problems. School learning can be based on activities, doing, following a set of instructions, which can be seen as modelling or scaffolding, more rarely applying knowledge and skills to challenging scenarios. This “recipe” approach to teaching can be effective in the right hands, as can all approaches, however in the wrong hands it can embed a limitation, created by the task. A level x task, given to a level x learner, will produce level x learning. Task choice and challenge is therefore an essential skill.

Unpicking the level of challenge, the need for learners to think, to plan, to organise, to select, to determine routes and ideas rather than just follow instructions, is an important aspect. Completing an activity sheet does not necessarily equate to learning. End to end activity sheets does not mean a scheme of work or a curriculum.

The process of learning has to be a dynamic interplay between the learner and the context, making active links between what is already known and what is being laid before them. To that end the interplay of the formal lessons, homework and time between lessons would also appear, to me, to be critical. How much homework is an unrelated activity, just because homework has to be given? What if the challenge was continuous, so that homework became pre-thinking, preparation for the lesson, or a reflection on the learning outcomes of the current one?

Boxing everything would appear to embed potential limitations, in inexperienced hands, but sometimes in more experienced hands, as a result of the system. From that point of view, the diagram at the header is limited as it implies boxes rather than a dynamic.

Knowledge and Skills

Learners need to know things in order to understand the world around them. Knowledge underpins all thinking, but the awakening by teaching or discovery through experience of new knowledge has to be explored in relation to what is already known. Making links is essential.

The knowledge area provides the context for the learning, sometimes in discrete subject areas, sometimes in less discrete manner; the real world of young children does not exist in subject boxes.

 Discrete area allows specific concepts, (current) knowledge and subject specific skills to be explored and developed to hone the skills over time to provide capacity to explore for oneself, at different levels, each of which, I would argue has validity.

One does not have to reach a specific level of expertise before using what is known to explore. As a teenager, I was interested in entomology, not as an expert, but as a way to explore the natural world. It was a specific interest, but linked with GCE and A level studies, allowed deeper insights in a very specific area.

The skills of the subject often provide the thought and practical processes, and it is this area that needs careful consideration, as it is within the process skills, use and application, that reflective practice enables the involved teacher to determine where any gaps occur.

Active Processing- Making Sense of Things

While a teacher might present knowledge in contexts in ways that they think are suitable for the children in their classes, there is never a guarantee that the message gets across to the learner.

The teacher language style, and the vocabulary being used might preclude a learner from picking up the essential information that they need to make progress. Not all learners are active listeners and even those who are can miss parts of information as they reflect on an earlier snippet of knowledge.

Even if the message does get across there is no guarantee that the learner will have the capacity to process the knowledge, in some cases because they do not have prior experiences which allow them to link the new information to an expected position. They already have a deficit, which, if undetected, embeds and deepens the deficit, by adding a further layer of deficit.

And, even if they have the capacity to take the information in and to process it, there are some learners who have difficulty in expressing what they know in ways that are acceptable as outcomes.

The teacher role is to place learning opportunities in front of children, it is also to walk along beside the learners, especially identified vulnerable groups. Engaging and investigating their progressive understanding supports fine tuning of interactions, the feedback, the guidance in a lesson, the alteration of learning expectations and the written feedback.

It is a cyclic event, with each successive outcome creating a new baseline of expectation, based on learning outcomes.

So to simplify the diagram at the header of this post.

• Teaching and Learning is a series of interlocking expectations over time; long, medium and short term.
• Analysis underpins the detail of planning, which in turn describes what will happen in the lesson, during and after which the reflective teacher adjusts expectations to evident outcomes, with appropriate records kept as aides memoire.
• Tasks set embed the expectations of the learning, which should be challenging to thinking rather than activity based.
• The product, the outcome and the process are important, with the latter capable of investigation to discover the aspects which a child finds difficult, receptive, processing or expressive difficulty. The former can be compared to aspirational outcomes and investigated for future learning steps.
• You don’t really know what they know unless they can communicate it to you and there are many routes to communication. It’s not just spoken or written.

Is it good enough?

That is for the teacher and the learner to determine. If exemplars are shared, they can be discussed against the learner outcome, with a descriptor of next steps shared. Once shared, they become a common expectation, for the learner focus. Showing progress can be good enough for an individual. If there is a “bottom line” expectation, this can be explored with learners to establish the personalised route necessary to achieve this. Specific support and guidance may be needed.

Target setting.

This might suffer from being an adult concept, especially for younger learners. Perhaps it would be more useful to talk in terms of what learners are trying to get better at.

Current target setting is also often a hidden agenda, with targets stuck inside book covers, in another booklet, or in a teacher’s planner. It also suffers in some places from lacking a dynamic; three targets set for a half term review. If not achieved, then reset. It sucks the life out of learners putting effort into their learning.

An alternative approach is to

• Put personalised targets on a fold out slip, at the edge of the exercise book, so that during the lesson, the child and the teacher can be aware of the specific targets.
• This can prompt conversations specific to that child, support the learner’s self-evaluations and also support teacher oral and written feedback, as the slips can be folded out during marking.
• Targets can be achieved , then become non-negotiable in future work, with new ones added.
• This approach also supports record keeping, as the slip forms an on-going record of achievement.

And so the cycle starts again, new tailored challenges, regular, purposeful engagement, reflection, adjustment, feedback, reflection and improvement, ad infinitum.

We are all, or should be, life-long learners, more often without a teacher. Life offers challenges. We need to create solution finders.
​

A rule of thumb when considering teaching plans…
​
Know your children well (baseline). Challenge them appropriately. Engage in the journey; support and guide as necessary. Explore and Improve outcomes. Outcomes become new baseline. Repeat.
 
It is always interesting talking with student teachers, because, by definition, they are still learning; they are students in Initial Teacher Education. Trying to unpick different elements that go to make up good teaching can give rise to interesting side issues, not least seeking synonyms for different aspects of the role. The two most common to seek alternatives are differentiation and assessment.

I quite like to start with simpler models then build onto that framework of understanding. When I was training, I had a friend whose first port of call for any topic was the Ladybird series, where there was easily available a rapid introduction to a subject, so these books provided the sub-headings to be filled in with detail later.

It is very important for trainee (and qualified) teachers to develop a holistic awareness and knowledge of the needs of the full range of children with whom they will work, so that, when faced with a particular year-group, their attainment can be seen in context and provide the basis for planning.
Knowing the children in their classes holistically, as described in the diagram above, supports decision making. Visualising education in the round and being aware of the children’s backgrounds can enable the teacher to underpin areas where the prior, background experience may become a limiting factor.

My own model of what teaching is can be described as a cycle; analyse, plan, do, review, record, or, even more simply, as in the nutshell below.
​

Knowing your children well, as a start point can be the greatest confusion for a teacher, as the records passing with the child may be incomplete or confusing, or simply based on data. In an era without a common assessment language between schools, this could become a significant issue at transfer, if not within transition, as teacher judgement is embedded in assessment information.

The range of children within a class can vary significantly, but, even within selected classes, such as streams and sets, there is a range to be accommodated, with both subject knowledge and skill needs to be addressed. Knowing the different needs of the children ensures that challenge within tasking can be tailored to their needs, with the need to articulate challenge being greater than the need to show different activities, which can be the fall-back position.

It is, in reality, the need to see children challenged within a lesson that an observer wishes to see. What have the children got to get their teeth into, to think about, to talk about and then to write about? That this will be different for different children seems to me to be self-evident, but then, I taught before the initial National Curriculum, quite often in an Integrated Day, group-based approach, which was then a feature of Primary practice. Group-based tasking was normal.

So, the first word that needs to be evident in the classroom is challenge and how this is manifest and visible across the range of abilities. It can be embedded in personal challenge or learning targets, which can be the main focus within a broader tasking.
Improvement is the second word that needs to be in common use in the class. If the challenge is correct, then there will be an outcome. Whatever the outcome, it should be capable of improvement, so sharing this with the group or class through the available technology should enable the children to talk through how they would seek to add even greater value to the shared outcomes.

The use of display, as in WAGOLL (What A Good One Looks Like) walls can be a valuable asset to discussing improvement. It is a case of constantly putting quality in front of children, so that they can build a visual image of expectation and take some charge of their own efforts.

Every outcome should become a new baseline if the process of challenge and improving outcomes is embedded in classroom practice. Each successive outcome becomes a descriptor of progression.

Of course the issue then is how to describe progress across a subject, so that there is a framework against which to make the judgement. The question is; how far have they travelled and where next? And so we go round the houses, especially without clear frames of reference. It might be better to consider security of learning, with successive descriptors of capacity supporting this thinking.
​

​Tasks (should) embed a wide range of challenges for learners, including: - 

• Some will be investigative, some problem-solving, some using and applying what is known into new areas. All should be challenging to thinking and have an impact on learner progress. The context for a practice task needs to be considered carefully.
• There will be the intellectual challenge; do they understand the task and the nature of the challenge? Can they perceive the strategies that they will need to fulfil the task?  Some of this will be determined by the teacher explanation of the task criteria, and what needs to be done to be successful, ie the success criteria, or what the teacher will be looking for.
• For some there will be the social challenge, such as the ability to cooperate with others in sharing available resources, organising, or being organised by, others.
• Some tasks will challenge independence. This, for the adults, is sometimes a difficult judgement call. Some tasks will need direct adult support, supervision and guidance to be successful. The amount and the detail of the adult support needs to be considered when reflecting on outcomes. What could the learners do for themselves?

​Some tasks will challenge learners to take what they know, to address the challenge with that baseline understanding, then to tackle new issues, identifying what they now need to know in order to make progress in the task.

For interest these are tasks, extracted from work planning diaries that I have used with young children.

Set up a fair test to find the best colour to wear when walking along the road.

Design and make a device that will project a ping pong ball 4 metres into a container.  

Using newspaper, build a framework strong enough to… hold a 100g mass 50cm above a table.. hold a cup of water… hold a cream egg… span a 50cm gap between tables and hold 100/200/500g

Consider how to find out of a full balloon weighs more than an empty one.

How much stretch does an elastic band have?

Using squared paper, always the same size, fold a series of rafts with different area bases and different height sides. Which design holds the greater mass?

Other ideas are embedded in subject related blogs.

In addition, there was a two week “getting to know” topic planned for September, totally in the teacher control, to re-establish working habits; see planning blog. There was also a school-wide expectation on the use of the workbooks; example (click for blog)
​
For many years, there have been studies that showed between year expectations may be different, sometimes significantly so, with inter-school transition having the greatest drop. I spoke about this at Beyond Levels #LearningFirst Bath.

​Teacher standard 2 is progress and outcomes. In September, in any year, a blank book does not provide a baseline, so a child can seek to depress a teacher expectation, should they be so minded. There is a “truism” that there is a drop off in achievement during the summer holiday. This approach tests that assumption.

To have previous examples provides a simple baseline expectation that may not be provided by written or oral reports. At it’s simplest, it can be as easy as having one piece of work stuck into the workbook as an aide memoire, but, to have extended examples could provide a greater reference point, for both teacher and child, enabling early interventions (TS6&5) to seek to regain earlier achievement levels.
​
It supports teacher decision-making, but also saves money on books… what's not to like?