In many ways, for the whole of my career in education, there have been two main elements; the information giving curriculum and what I have always seen as the challenge curriculum. Some will see this as knowledge and skills, but, in the reality of the world, unless what you know can be used and applied in contexts where it is applicable or can be adapted to need, the acquisition of knowledge for it’s own sake, while laudable, could also become slightly debilitating.
It can be summed up as something to think about, to talk about and to show in an appropriate form.

Sharing knowledge is the bread and butter of every subject area. It requires planning over different timescale, allocated to different year groups and clearly identifying, so that it is progressive building, rather than an ad-hoc hiccupping.

With different age children, there will be some accommodation to the needs of the children, in terms of vocabulary and phrasing, but the essence of the sharing is to impart information that is essential and desirable in order that the children can then tackle pre-planned tasks. The sharing might have required a variety of modelling techniques, beyond the teacher voice; manipulable materials, visuals, as video or drawn elements or sound, music or other relevant material. This is often called dual coding.

Hopefully, this input is the stimulus for many of the learners to start to think independently for themselves, to generate their own questions and, given time to discuss with their peers, to assimilate the information more firmly. Learner feedback after the sharing of information is the key to teacher decision making; move on or revisit?

Task Setting (What’s the challenge?)

Limitations can be embedded in the activities that are given to children. In earlier posts, I’ve looked at task setting 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 what is known into overcoming a challenge and solving problems.

Much school learning can be seen as activities; doing, following a set of instructions, rather than applying knowledge and skills to challenging scenarios. This “recipe” approach to teaching can be effective in the right hands, as can all approaches, particularly where learners may be insecure and it is effectively remodelling in practice, however in the wrong hands it embeds 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 do not mean a scheme of work.

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 (rehearsal) 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.
 
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.
• Some tasks will enable learners to identify areas where their learning is less secure and they may well ask for clarification or revisiting of earlier learning; in other words, the task is a “test”.

Tasks are often of the kind that I would call “Blue Peter” or “recipe” tasks.

Based on the idea of “Here’s one I made earlier”, they require a copyist approach; follow the instructions to the letter and it will turn out just like the model. This approach does occasionally have a place, but, with overuse, it can embed dependence. The approach is, by default, the teacher guide in the worksheet, with limited room for the child to really show their capabilities.

The best tasks make learners think, retrieve what they already know to bring to bear on the task in hand, to consider the framework and strategy for their investigation, the information and resources that they need, their personal and group organisation (as appropriate), how they will record their progress, the timescales available, so how they will use their time effectively. This approach fits equally well in formal lessons as well as in more open situations. Learner awareness of task needs is a central element of success.

Lessons?

Activities laid end to end are not a curriculum.

• Activity/busy-ness is not necessarily challenge.
• If task outcomes are general, one set for thirty, they will only impact positively on a narrow range of abilities.
• Task setting should enable learners to go beyond the activity. Not just, “You’ve finished early so here’s another activity”.
• Consider “the loneliness of the long-distance worksheet”.
• More open tasks enable learners to show their thinking ability and, possibly, a wider range of skills and knowledge.
• In open tasks, what you see can be greater than what you were looking for.
• Children often surprise teachers in learning situations.

If you want a thinking classroom, it’s essential that everyone is thinking, not just you, otherwise you may well be working twice as hard as the children, just to keep up the momentum.

Interaction and
Interpersonal skills are the stuff of life, whether two, or many,
Interlocutors; after all, life is essentially group activity. The
Interplay between people can lead to
Interesting developments. The
Interconnectedness of life can be exaggerated in some social situations like a school, where
Interlopers can find difficulty in integrating, adults as well as children.

Internalised rejection can lead to
Intermittent disagreement and the need for
Intercession to restore equilibrium. Learning to
Interact with each other starts from birth, parents and others trying to
Interpret sounds and developing speech,
Interspersed with an ongoing personal monologue
Interpreting their surrounding world. This
Intergenerational
Interaction leads to
Internalisation through reflection.

Interleaving of experience, known as life, ensures that new contexts require
Internalised knowledge to be brought to the fore in a more mature way, leading to an
Interchange of information.
Interactive conversations allow for query and clarification.

International diplomacy sometimes requires
Intermediaries to
Interpret the thoughts of one party to another. The simplicity of all these situations is learning to communicate, to
Interpret, because, at heart, humanity is
Interdependent. The group can support the individual through mutual
Interest.
​
Interventions are essentially discussions, questions refining understanding between people, in order to fine tune responses. Good
Interventions require active listening and reflection before responding.
​
We are all in this (world) together. Life is groupwork...

When you look at the word create and some of the synonyms for it, it means to make something (happen). That describes the efforts of young children, who can be happily absorbed in making something that embeds their thoughts, even if the end-product does not, to an adult eye, look like the intention.

“Look mummy, I’ve made a …” Smiles and pride…Response? Who can fail to be moved by the child seeing themselves as a creative being?

The incomplete nature of the product may be due to a lack of experiences and ideas, hand control, choice or availability of materials, but is, to the child, a work of immense pleasure. The making gives pleasure.

You don’t have to be an expert to achieve that level.

You cannot create experience. You must undergo it. Albert Camus
​
While the first incarnation of the National Curriculum brought Design Technology centre stage in thinking, moving Primary “making” to another level, largely by articulating stages in development in a subject that could be something of a Cinderella subject, subsequent revisions brought into play the idea of resource tasks. These could be seen as basic underpinning elements that would require direct teaching. A simple example might be showing children how to safely cut a piece of 1cm spar, using a saw and bench hook, ensuring wood held secure with one hand and a good cutting style with the saw. In the early experiences, a focus on cutting to a line might require simple practice. This activity would then be linked to measuring, cutting specific lengths of wood.

Eventually, after a period of practice, and being able to cut with some precision, a challenge might be set. One that fitted well with a Greek topic was creating a marble maze, based on a design developed on an A4 sheet of 1cm squared paper. The first step was designing the maze by shading out the “walls”, which would then be covered by carefully cut pieces of spar. Eventually, the maze would be tested with a marble run through the “passages”. While some children could undertake the bulk of the task independently, some would need support and regular guidance, especially with quality control, a clear focus on refinement.

Consider the following; design and make a paper aeroplane that will fly at least five metres. This is a very simple example which could be given to a child of 6 years. Where would the child start? Paper is the specified medium, so perhaps collecting a selection of papers would help. Exploring the papers to discover and describe (orally or in writing) the features of each would provide familiarity with the material. The need to create an aeroplane shape would require research, orally, by asking an “expert”, using library sources, or looking this up on the internet. Copying a previously made example provides the task to be practiced. To achieve the flight of five metres might require trial and error methodology, with adaptations and adjustments explored. Watching and collaborating with others, discussing refinements and persevering are all essential skills for life and work.

As children passed through the school, tasks were created that provided progressive challenges, incorporating the broader range of skills that had been learned, for example, make hats, working buggies, windmills/turbines, systems (crazy golf hole), musical instrument, puppets, storage items. The challenge would be to design and make a … to… On occasion, this would be explicitly topic linked, levers, castle gate, moving puppets.

Sometimes, it would link science and making.
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?

Problem solving, project management, collaboration and cooperation, persistence, evaluation are all side products. Working in this way can also support PSHE, as learners begin to see strengths in each other.

An example from my teaching career springs to mind. The topic for a period of time was sports. During one week, I decided to use the long, wide corridor near my classroom to set a challenge. On day one, the group of eight seven-year olds whom I thought had the greatest independence were challenged to create (design and make) a crazy golf hole, using materials available within the classroom. They had the morning as their working time. In the first fifteen minutes, they collected a range of items which might be useful. This was followed with a group discussion around a large piece of sugar paper, with ideas drawn and discussed. The build process started from the agreed plan, but soon adjustments were made, deigned to be improvements. After an hour, they had their golf hole. A period of measuring and drawing secured the design for posterity and allowed later consideration of scale, as drawings were tidied onto squared paper. Photographs were taken for reference. The main task was the use of the hole to see how many shots and how long it took for different class members to complete. This tally and timing data was later collated into charts. The group explained before starting what needed to happen to each class member, so everything was “fair”. Before lunchtime, the group sat together to reflect on what had been achieved, both in terms of measurable outcomes, but also in terms of their personal development. The maturity levels of all were enhanced, as they saw the purposes of the different aspects of learning and set the tone for subsequent groups to follow. Follow up included instruction writing, developed into reports, scale drawings for the more able, but sketch maps with measurements for all. The quality of discussion was very high, as children had had a shared experience.

Problem solving defines the purpose for learning. The clarity with which the learner can define for themselves the point of learning provides the driving force for achievement. How much learning is lost because the learner can’t see the point?

Something from my file...
​
A starter for an activity that could be developed in many directions, depending on the needs of the children. Shape and pattern in one activity?

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 are available, the challenge alters yet again.

​Unpicking the analyse-plan-do-review-record cycle.

Seeking adaptability in lessons as a result of more dynamic planning approaches.

Planning for learning will always be an issue for teachers, in that there are multiple layers of responsibility to be contained within the plan. However, planning is the bedrock of the order and organisation that enables a teacher to run a successful class and a head to run a successful school. The ultimate in planning allows a teacher to move towards personalised approaches, allowing individual children to have their needs accommodated. There are significant links with project management, and it is no surprise that earlier incarnations of thematic work were called projects. The sadness was that these projects sometimes came to an abrupt end due to time pressures, lack of resources or some other shortfall.

Teachers and schools have a number of variables to consider in planning, learning contexts, use of space, resources of all types, time, as well as the individual learning and emotional needs of the children. A good knowledge of the curriculum is essential, as well as a clear understanding of the potential of ICT to support learning. If any of these variables are not considered, learning can be unsuccessful, i.e. poorly structured topic, lack of appropriate space, table or floor, limited resources or poor accessibility, inadequate time available for development and completion. If the children’s needs are not respected, many may not make progress.

There are current debates about whether the curriculum should be built from the needs of the children or whether it is better to define the contexts within which children will learn. The Rose and Cambridge reviews suggested learning within domains, rather than subjects. It seems to be the case that current Government thinking errs towards retention of subjects and knowledge. Either way, the learning context for the children and whether they cover a sufficiently broad curriculum will ultimately be determined by their teacher.

Most schools plan at different timescales, whole school, annual plans, medium term (1-6 weeks) and then teacher short term plans. A great deal of planning will have gone into the stage of the teacher planning a lesson. Teachers worry most about short-term planning and some schools demand significant detail at that point, which creates a very heavy bureaucratic workload to create something that is ultimately a teacher aide memoire.

There is a strong argument for allowing the short term plans to be determined by the teacher, if the medium term plans are strong guides, but with the fall-back position that plans would be required if the teaching required improvement. For many teachers, a reflective log book would be sufficient; in fact I have met teachers whose schools require specific short term plans, which the teacher then reinterprets to be easily accessible. Are short term plans any use if they do not help short term cover teachers to be able to pick up exactly what is needed?

If planning overviews include plans for heavy marking demand periods, then workload issues could be examined more clearly. This could include  alsoreport writing when other workload issues, such as meetings, can be adapted.

Planning is never easy, but in this case it is the means by which children with different needs are supported to make progress in learning. Try unpicking and describing your own classroom practice. That’s not always easy either!

Just for information, here’s an overview of standards development for a trainee, who will need mentoring into ways of thinking, strategically as well as in detail. ​

​Teaching is such a simple word, yet it means so many different things and as a result can end up being devalued.  But what if the simplicity was the quality of thinking done by children during a lesson, in assimilating new information, ordering and reordering ideas within a well-prepared challenging task, using and applying the known to a new situation?

We may never be able to judge absolutely the quality of learning of every child during a lesson, but we could judge the quality of tasking, the range and depth of challenge, the quality of questioning, discussion, feedback, involvement, independence, review and evaluation, before a check of the outcomes, so it would seem possible to make an inference that learning might or might not take place as a result of the lesson, based on the quality and depth of interactions.

A teacher is likely to be able to talk, expressively and eloquently about their subject, for an extended period and many can do so and make the subject very interesting, yet, if the learners are not tuned in to the substance and the direction of thought and therefore do not learn, is it the fault of the teacher or the learners? Are children consumers or producers of learning; passive or active?

At the other extreme, pure discovery methodology can also lead to reduced overall learning, as the children may not have a range of skills with which to enhance their discovery. There are significant benefits of experiential learning however, especially in a highly communicative environment with actively engaged adults.

Much teacher time and energy is expended in trying to distil the “best methodology”, as if teaching is a team sport and you have to be in one team or another. To my mind, the best methodology is that which the teacher judges will enable an individual child to learn something which they didn’t before, to internalise it and use it when needed to perform another task. Having a very broad range of approaches available allows a choice. A reflective practitioner will know when a lesson is not going well, should identify the reasons and alter course accordingly.

To use an overused cliché, it is not rocket science.

A school policy for teaching and learning is likely to show evidence of: -

1) analysis of evidence leading to quality information being made available to support
2) detailed planning, including the provision of appropriate resources and staffing.
3) Students in the best practice, actively sharing in their learning journey, which is
4) tracked and reviewed at regular intervals with
5) records being collated and disseminated, allowing the process to be cyclic and developmental.
It all starts with knowing the children, so that challenge and response can be refined, supporting their learning journeys.


How does any teacher see inside a child’s head?

Unless there’s some kind of externalisation, oral, written or facial expression, it can be next to impossible to understand.

A friend worked in a special school for severely disabled children 4-19, until his recent retirement; an incredibly challenging role. In discussion we were exploring ideas within teaching and learning. It soon became apparent that, in order to support his learners to make progress, he had to effectively “get inside the heads” of each individual, to try to understand as well as possible what made each of them “tick”, especially those with severe communication difficulties. Inevitably there was a small element of trial and error, but with 1:1 ratios, any “misconceptions” could be addressed immediately. The evidence upon which he worked was often miniscule, but, over time, he refined his responses to each child’s needs.

Where student teachers were working in a school for moderate learning difficulties, each child unique in their presentation of need and their home environment, they had to get to know the children really well to be able to create appropriate plans for learning.

The notion of what makes children tick is an important one. Misunderstand this and even the most well-meaning adult can cause a situation to escalate.

Anyone watching either Educating Essex, or follow-up series, cannot fail to see adults seeking to understand the individual children. Even then, nothing can prevent a flare-up.

After a period of working with a variety of schools, I reflected on their personalised, rich curriculum. Their reasoning was based on their analysis of their children’s needs. This led me to speculate about the point at which personalisation is embedded in practice.

The last two statements embed a clear expectation, of learning, use of time and potential outcomes. If based on capability, “I want to see if you can…..” the expectations embedded also drive the in-lesson conversations, questions and on-going feedback. Coupled with exploratory discussions in-lesson and the use of exemplars, they are the checks and balances to evaluation, by children and the teacher after the lesson.

Successful teaching and learning is not just the product of a sequence of activities to be done at specific times. That way lies stereotype teaching and limited learning. The strategic thinking of the teacher in defining the learning journey of children embeds the points at which the children will take over and become producers of learning, deepening the experience of both learner and teacher as skills are demonstrated which can be further refined at  a later date.

Thinking is an essential component of learning; without it a learner would not exist, except in the most passive form, the stereotypical “empty vessel”.

How can we ever know what is going on in a learner’s head, unless there are opportunities for them to express their ideas cogently, with the view that all expression is a “draft thought”, capable of challenge and alteration? This can occur in writing, but writing is likely to have already gone through a thought process before being produced. However, seen as a draft, writing can be supportive of developmental conversation, orally or through effective feedback responses.

Therefore talk would appear to be a major component of learning experience. To make real progress in learning, learners need to make sense of both what they know and how they know it. They need to have a partner relationship to ensure they become independent producers, not just passive consumers of learning.

We talk of learning journeys for children. It is possible to use the idea of a journey to support a child’s articulation of what they are thinking and reflecting on how their ideas have changed. Essentially the learner becomes the storyteller of an episode of learning, using recount in as detailed a form as possible to put across an idea. Personalised storyboarding, or developmental notes, can support the expressive process. Their audience, members of the class, including the teacher, can ask for clarification and provide feedback. Learning thereby becomes a collegiate project.

Thinking is supported by language and language is further developed by articulating thinking. Talking things through is the means by which children’s understanding of their own learning is deepened. Talk to Jerome Bruner, or Vygotsky…
​
The fundamentals of education; thinking and talking, before recording?
 

If people want a new piece of furniture, or a shed, they can go to a supplier, maybe IKEA and buy something that they can bring home flat-pack, follow instructions and end up with something that will suffice. It may be a different issue if there are pieces missing, or an error is made in fitting together Unless you have additional skills, remediation can be frustrating or impossible.

​My own shed building efforts can be seen here...

If only the act of becoming a teacher was like this. Unless you read the background manuals carefully, practice and try things for yourself and make refinements through your own thinking, repetitive practice is not necessarily the best option; we are all changed by experiences and our responses to them. I could add that context matters; a great deal…

Teaching is a thinker’s game. https://chrischiversthinks.weebly.com/blog-thinking-aloud/dont-set-up-schools-to-fail

We’re getting close to half term and it’s clear from visits to schools that the teachers and trainees whom I visit are getting tired. Yesterday Saturday, 3rd February, was the day of Southern Rocks 18, very well organised and run by David Rogers and Kristian Still. A broad spectrum of teachers had offered to run sessions, such choice that it was difficult to select four. In the end, Jarlath O’Brien and Jules Daulby won the morning choice and Alison Kriel and Mike Watson the afternoon. Together with keynotes from Amjad Ali, Jo Payne and Paul Blake, it was a thoroughly busy day, helped enormously by the staff and pupils of the Focus School at Hindhead.

There was much food for thought throughout the day, with not a lot of time to chill and process the distinct elements that would form the nuggets to take away and consider further. I was being put into the position of a learner, but, as an adult, aware that I could retain these nuggets for later. So a couple of days have been part spent, in quiet moments, thinking about one or two linked elements.
​
Learning is tiring. I came away replete, from taking my fill of the available expertise and questions raised, but also the very generous food, which was available from beginning to end.
​

​One could argue that the current National Curriculum is a specific model of a curriculum; other models are and have been available.

There are several organisational processes at work within schools, in that the linearity of timetabling creates a potentially overriding dynamic, which may suit the needs of some subjects, but which may actively work against others.

In the process of creating a linearity, it is possible to fall into almost linear teaching, with disparate elements joined end to end, which can ensure “coverage” whereas the needs of many learners may require the teacher to overtly make the necessary links between areas of study.

The other side to linearity can be an activity form of approach, supported by “bright ideas”, rather than linked elements.

In reality, especially in Primary education, the linearity can, and should, rapidly becomes three dimensional, when the needs of learners are put alongside the needs of the curriculum, with potentially 30 different responses to any input of information.

No teacher can “see” what a child is thinking, however experienced they are. The best that can be “seen” are the body language, externalisation through articulation or physical responses. Then each teacher will respond from their prior experience, in as refined a manner as their experiences will allow.

I’m going to assume that learning is taking place within a knowledge context, whether defined as a theme or as a discrete subject. Within that knowledge context there are developmental processes that have to be unpicked and represented to children in forms that allow them to access what is being taught. This may require, for some children, a form of interpretation, using the known vocabulary to move into less well-known areas. This could be supported by concrete resources, diagrammatic representation, images, still or moving, or it may be solely the teacher voice. Finding the baseline for the class and significant children is important for decisions on subsequent scaffolding of the process, allowing adequate and, over time, refined pitching of lesson expectations.

You’ve covered the knowledge bit and the scaffolding of the process. The next part is the different processing needs of different children, which may require intervention or adaptation with resources, modelling/scaffolding or time. We can’t ever expect homogeneity in this. A truism of my teaching career has been that different children need different explanations and amounts of time to embed the new knowledge into their practice.

The flexibilities in the Primary timetable for much of my career allowed some to have a little extra time to complete a quality task. Today’s timetables may be less supportive of extra time, leaving, for some, a trail of less complete task outcomes. It’s very easy for a teacher to fill time with activity but may be less easy for children to use the available time effectively, unless they have someone overseeing their use of the time. It may also be the case that timetables extend the learning time beyond the capacity of certain children to focus effectively.
​
Process practice, or rehearsal, is an integral part of all learning. This has to be purposeful, well modelled and articulated, within a clear focus and timescale, providing expectations that can fine-tune children’s decisions and actions.

​My last Southern Rocks18 session was with Mike Watson, who enthused about the capacity for the outdoors to enhance the quality of thinking in a lesson, by changing the context and allowing additional interaction with the challenge.

Evaluation of progressive outcomes, with timely intervention to advise on finer points, eventually leads to an overall evaluation and consideration of continuing areas where focus is needed. These next steps, if they are to be effected and checked by child and teacher, need to be evident to both and available for reference. See flip sheets. 

Refinement comes from learner-focused effort on fine details, much unseen, as it is internalised, but made evident through articulation, or with hand control of pen, pencil or paint brush likely to evidence that this has happened in quality presentation, but that has to be coupled with the detail of what’s been written or recorded; another form of articulation.

As I got older, I found my stamina levels dropped somewhat. This is particularly evident where physical effort is required; I may have to take an occasional rest after a period of sustained energetic gardening, for example. Thinking is equally tiring, especially when encountering new information, or perhaps experiencing novel situations. Sustaining interest has to be internalised, from a few minutes in early learning, through to extended lectures as an adult learner. If you have ever spoken to an adult audience, especially of teachers, you’ll see a wide variety of responses, particularly where adult audiences may be using electronic devices, some for note making, others using social media as their memory joggers.

A good lesson is likely to offer something of quality to think about, time to assimilate, including time to talk and clarify, feedback to and from peers and adults, determining clarity that could then be recorded in some form, as useful reference points for future learning reference. Hopefully, it has also engaged the learner to think outside the lesson; quality (reflective) homework seeks to enhance this.

Teaching is a team game, a college of thinkers. https://chrischiversthinks.weebly.com/blog-thinking-aloud/teaching-is-a-team-game

Thinking is an internal dynamic.
As we were reminded on Saturday, quoting Daniel Willingham, “Memory is the residue of thought”.

Get the children (all learners) thinking.

Southern Rocks 19 certainly got me, and lots of others, thinking. Thanks David and Kristian.

​Considering Post Graduate and School Direct short placements, planning for a successful experience.

Being such a short experience, the six/seven weeks will fly past very quickly, so, to maximise the potential for a successful practice I offer the following organisational insights from supervising previous experiences.

The first thing is to secure the personal professional standards as per this diagram.

This means being professional from the first contact with the new school to give the school confidence that the trainee is an appropriate person to be trusted with their children. There is an immediate need to find out about key policies, including safeguarding and behaviour management.

 From the beginning, getting to know the children from talking to them, generally and about the work in their books helps to establish appropriate expectations. This will be added to with discussion of tracking documents and knowing where the teacher would like the children to be by the end of the period. Find out the themes and topics being covered and those specific areas where you will take a lead role. A good mentor ensures that the trainee has received as much detailed information as possible that will help them in their early decision making.

Two key messages to any trainee; know the children as well as possible and know your stuff…
​
The trainee, guided by their mentor, needs to create a personal development plan for the weeks of the experience. They need to put into the plan any specific areas that they need to observe, or experience, within this key stage, whether structural like planning or behaviour management, discussions with specific staff, to address any gaps in, or to broaden your understanding of different areas. Plan in any assignments that have to be completed within this timescale, particularly if they depend on interactions with children or staff. Professional time should be used effectively and trainees need to remember that colleagues fit conversations around their other jobs.
​
The practical teacher standards will need to be developed within the experience. 

2; Progress and Outcomes or knowing the children, in class terms. The range of abilities, how they are organised for learning and tasking. Finding out about the school approach to assessment and feedback.

4; Planning. This will have school specific elements. Hopefully, trainees will be able to get the plans for the half term, from which weekly plans will be developed, by the trainee, so that daily and single lesson plans can fit into a weekly dynamic, allowing reflection, during the week, of the need to adapt and also to evaluate the progress made during the week.

​In the second experience, standards 8 professionalism, 7 behaviour management, 1 expectations, 4 planning (order and organisation) and 3 subject knowledge, are generally secure, across all the trainees, as they are personal attributes that are enhanced with experience and application of personal capabilities.

There is some variation in standard 7, within classes where specific behaviour issues required individualised responses, which the class teachers acknowledged were significant.

Although teaching standards 2, 5 and 6 can therefore be argued as less secure, it is perhaps important to reflect why this is the case, as they appear across all types of trainee going in a second experience. It was interesting to discuss this issue with mentors during a training session and to ask them to consider where they would feel less secure if they were parachuted into a different school and key stage.

With standard 2 being progress and outcomes, the trainees are at a disadvantage in going into their second school, as they just don’t know the children in that class. Neither will they have a detailed understanding of children of that age group, so may not have mental “baselines” from which to extract appropriate learning expectations.

Standards 6&5; Learning to develop tasks for a new age range is challenging in itself, to match and challenge appropriately over time. In the absence of good subject knowledge that embeds an understanding of how the subject develops, lessons can become activities that may or may not lead to secure learning and, in addition, appropriate interventions may be missed. The ability to think on their feet and adjust a task demand to evident needs of the learners might be compromised. Assessment can be further undermined, as each school is seeking to develop their own internal systems in the absence of national descriptors. The meeting with mentors showed that there were seven systems within nine mentors, including four variations of the local County system.

The early meeting with the teacher mentors leading the second experience enabled discussion of issues that arose in earlier cohorts, seeking to pre-empt some of the issues that might simply be a constituent part of the second experience.

As a result, these areas were a focus for mentor-trainee discussion.

Trainees are charged with monitoring progress and interventions over their experience. They have to unpick the detail of learning from interactions and outcomes to understand ideas behind progress. Some of this is captured in personal case studies.

Trainee reflection time. With the inevitable pressures of routes such as School Direct, built in (collaborative peer) reflection/ weekly review time would seem a necessary element to consider, when reviewing the holistic experience. Time to sit, to think and to have professional development discussions needs to be built into all school experiences. The mentor role is key to this.

In Primary terms, the breadth of teaching standard 2, as progress and outcomes, covering year 1 to year 6, is one that would repay some developmental thought, to create exemplar material that demonstrates the development from EYFS (year 1) to year 6, within the current curriculum, especially in English and Maths. This reference material would support developing judgement. If it was extended with examples from other curriculum areas, this could raise appropriate expectations.

To exemplify TS2 further, regular moderation activities between the trainee and the class teacher could result in a personal reflective portfolio unpicking progress in different subjects, but also introduce the trainees to the need for regular evaluation to inform teaching practice.

In the main, trainees will be on track to achieve at a good or better level at the end of their training year. If they’re not, they will be subject to detailed concerns having been raised.
All trainees would benefit from focused reflection time looking at the 24652 dynamic, working to fine tune their approaches, developing personalisation to evident needs, including SEND. This is a clear action on the mentors during weekly review meetings.

When considering needs in returning to their substantive experience: -
Get to know the progress made by the children in their absence, then…
·         to develop (with support) their own medium term plans,
·         to unpick the detail of  learning from outline intention through their own actions,
·         understanding subject development over time,
·         creating challenging tasks appropriate to the children’s needs,
·         interacting with learning giving appropriate supportive feedback and guidance,
·         making rational decisions based on outcome,
·         interacting with anomalies
·         and evaluating outcomes.

​In other words, refining, or recalibrating themselves as whole class teachers, taking ever greater responsibility for progress, preparing to consider the needs of different classes in September.

​Photographs as storyboards and memory prompts

Oracy can appear to be a current buzz word. If it means public speaking, then, to me, it represents a small part of actual learning. If it means getting children to talk appropriately about what they are doing, developing their articulacy across a range of needs, I’m all in favour. In effect, this approach would be part of a long tradition in school, of getting children to externalise their thinking. As a classteacher, the tape recorder was well used to record thoughts, stories and discussions. This might be supplemented by paired writing, with one child articulating and the other scribing, with both editing after the first draft. As this was the time of large classes and before TAs, both methods were necessary.

The picture gallery above shows stages in the placement of a septic tank in a very small garden in France. The project required the creation of a 25-cubic metre “sand pit” into which the treated water from the septic tank could seep, to comply with regulations. The digger was a specialist machine, in that the shovel could be reversed to tip the earth over the wall into the waiting lorry. The plastic pipework is all very much hidden, and the earth has regrown into a useable grass area.

Following on from my last blog, looking at images as memory joggers for learning, I want to propose that, for some children, providing them with the essence of an activity will allow them to better articulate their own personal narrative from the activity. In many ways, it is supported report rehearsal for writing.

With digital photography having become a feature of many devices, to capture images through an activity is now so easy that children can do it for themselves; cameras and iPads are features of most classrooms.

While children are working on a task, an any subject, sequential photographs can be used to provide a record of their activity, through to final outcomes. In subjects such as PE, art, DT, science, outdoor activities of all kinds, image capture during activity can become memory prompts, which, for some children who might struggle with capturing their thoughts in writing after the activity, to have prompts which enable them to structure their articulation, ahead of writing, could be the difference between achievement and non-achievement. The photographic gallery is a scaffold, which can be supported by questioning to ascertain greater detail.

Where this approach became a more common feature of classroom life, children can use any activity as a stimulus for talk and writing. Rather than set up activity that becomes a stimulus for writing instructions; a common one is making a cup of tea, a slice of toast or perhaps a sandwich, why not ask children to create instructions for playing a sport, how to make a piece of 3D art, collage, clay, or perhaps how to get from one place in the school to another? Capture what they have been involved in, rather than setting up dissociated activities.

If the picture prompts are put out vertically, down the side of the page, they can be used to then create from one sentence to a short paragraph against each picture. If they can start with one sentence, they might be persuaded to try for a second, and so on…

Earlier, I wrote about using tape recorders. The iPad can be used as a voice capture machine, with the child or a TA acting as scribe afterwards, perhaps creating personal reading books for reluctant readers, to read their own stories.
​

From experience, the approach above woks extremely well with the two-page approach to writing, acting as the preliminary scaffold for a first draft, supported with word lists, simple dictionaries and personal focus SPaG rules.

“How do your know?”

I’ve been rustling (digitally) through some photographs from the summer holidays, in many ways searching for some inspiration for some painting, but, to me, by far the most common focus is that every photograph brings back a flood of memories; not just the immediacy of the photograph, but the surrounding, or linked experiences and sensations.

I am very conscious that my 1950/60s childhood is much less well documented, in large part because photography was relatively more expensive and much less secure; there was always a chance that the photo wouldn’t come out and required the trek to the chemist to develop the film, with a wait time of at lest a few days. Those black and white photos that exist, however, do draw back memories, distorted through the remainder of my life.

Dual coding seems to be a current buzz word. I have a feeling that it is one of those things that has always been a part of human existence, but, having been identified, has become a thing in itself.

Life is a series of experiences, both formal learning and informal experience.
​
·         Being part of an experience and engaging in dialogue about the experience is likely to fit with the dual coding remit.
·         To develop some kind of record of the experience, to photograph it, to draw or paint or simply to write down some significant words as aides memoire. An ancient shepherd who kept a knot in a string, or a notch in a piece of wood for every sheep could use one-to-one correspondence to check the flock, even if they couldn’t count.
·         Reference back to these contemporaneous documents, as prompts, coupled with dialogic exploration enables an engaged adult lead to offer further areas for reflection, research or evaluation; creating appropriate links to the original experience.
·         Speaking about the learned experience, using relevant aides memoire, opens the speaker to and audience, which, if allowed to comment or critique, allows the speaker to consider areas that might not have been part of the earlier experience.
·         The read and spoken experiences can be interpreted into appropriate materials that exemplify the experience. an example might be the mathematical material created by Zoltan Dienes, exploring place value and mathematical functions in considerable depth.
·         The combination of the manipulation, the dialogue, the drawing, diagramming, and the interpretation into a number system, all contribute to a multiplicity of links within understanding.
·         In many ways, the notion of “show your working” is very important as it extends the “dialogue” between the learner and the teacher, allowing insights into procedural thinking. This can extend to “talk your thinking”; a child articulating their rationale when undertaking a task.

It is the child version of “know how with show how”, which, to me, is the essence of my understanding of dual coding when working with learners; getting them to externalise what they are thinking, which is the underpinning of assessment/teacher judgements.

Developing a Primary curriculum

Start with a plan…

Tim Oates, director of assessment R&D at Cambridge Assessment, was interviewed this week in Schools Week. 

He talked of a “solid” Primary curriculum being needed for future GCSE success, that the National Curriculum, published in 2014, was “a list of desirable outcomes of schooling”, to be turned into a “compelling and engaging school curriculum”.

The piece went on to say that “Developing a school curriculum can and should be supported by a variety of processes – spontaneous innovation by teachers, digging out forgotten things that worked brilliantly in the past, sharing practice within and between schools, polishing existing learning activities through lesson study and observation, using paper and digital resources of the highest quality, and working in a context supported by inspection and targets.”

The example that he offered, of a “pen pal” letter scheme between Kidderminster Primary children and elderly residents of local care homes, was, apparently, not offered as something special.

What Tim’s piece did do, for me, was to make me reflect on those things that have been essentially thrown away on the bonfires of successive curricular changes, but more particularly, with the 2014 incarnation and the way in which it was introduced, at the same time as putting schools into a panic over assessment systems and also introducing major SEND changes and examination change.

Curriculum development needs time, quality time, lots of quality thinking time, to get above the minutiae of the written words, to begin to imagine directions of travel. Having been a classroom teacher when the 1987 NC became a reality, subsequent changes through to 2005 were relatively small adjustments to what had gone before. A little minor tinkering with a few topics, either tweaking them up or down a year group, was all that was required. Teachers could use much of what went before and spend some quality time thinking about the alterations needed.

Some schools will have been in a position to address each area of change early, some I visited in the run up to September 2014 had made great strides in development. Others, given their start points, their generic outcomes and locality issues affecting turbulence in staffing and pupil movements, may still be working on plans to fully embed these changes, seen as improvements.

In talking with parents and children from my time as headteacher, it is always made clear that the children enjoyed their learning, through a broad curricular approach, made good progress across the board, succeeded in the (level-based) SATs in each subject and went to Secondary School still hungry to learn, where they continued their progress into successful futures.
​
Overall strategies supported shorter term thinking, in that while staff, in the July before the academic year, had time given to create an annual plan of learning intentions, this then translated into between ten and fifteen “topics”, which became the vehicles for cross curricular fertilisation, allowing many opportunities for real-life letter writing, instructions, lists, fiction or non-fiction narrative reports, based on their developing “cultural literacy”; they learned their vocabulary in context.

​Topics lasted as long as they were purposeful, so might be between one and six weeks. Sometimes they spanned half terms or longer breaks. It meant that a lot was fitted in, opportunities for revisiting earlier skills in a new knowledge context existed, so that rehearsal was also embedded.

​As a Governor of a Primary School in a deprived area that has struggled for a settled staff and has now achieved that, a secure development phase can begin in earnest, with potential for clarity in curriculum articulation being maintained over a longer term, across a broader curricular offer. It takes some time. 

1997 and all that

As a teenager, my best friend was the son of a zoo superintendent, so we had the run of the zoo out of hours. This often meant that we could visit the monkey house, where the grooming behaviours were often on display. This nit-picking served a very useful purpose in monkey hygiene. The care and attention being shown by the adults towards each other and the young also supported the colony cohesion.

The first years of my teaching career saw regular visits from the lady who was nicknamed the nit-nurse. At the first sign of a possible infestation, lines of children could be seen snaking through the school waiting for their inspection. It didn’t seem to have any great impact on regular hygiene, nor did it embed any group awareness, as anyone found with nits or lice might find themselves distanced by others.

A year ago, I was invited to speak at the #LearningFirst conference in Bath.
​
In reflecting on that event, I have been considering what might be seen as dynamics in education over the time of my teaching career, to begin to understand why we are where we are today.

Being trained in the period just after the Plowden report, and at a time where there was a great need for new teachers, to replace the generation who were pre- or post-war trained and reaching retirement in large numbers, the freedoms to think about learning and teaching were immense. There was still a strong tradition of Direct Instruction, but mixed with less formal approaches, in part because class sizes were large (mine were 38/9 during 1974-79), but also because resources were few and often home-made. If you are making worksheets by hand, these take considerable time. The Banda machine was rationed, so 30+ copies were rare. There was a reliance on teacher voice, or perhaps something on the tape-recorder, a radio broadcast, or again, home-made activities.

In informal sessions, we were working with smaller groups, challenged a la Vygotsky, to embed some new challenge, to be approached collaboratively, with decision making and resourcefulness, so reducing, a little, the demand on immediate teacher response. As the teacher was the only adult in the class, this was an important consideration. Yes, there may be a variety of different activities going on at the same time. It did require some movement between groups to keep everything moving, but it also allowed time for individualised support and hearing readers. There was often significant personalisation of challenge, to accommodate the class range of needs, with those children with specific needs having tasks tailored to their needs. Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLD) was the general term for SEN children. Describing their needs and seeking an appropriate approach was the working methodology. We did not seek to diagnose; that was for other professionals.

This approach persisted, with minor variation, within every school I worked in up to 1997, even through earlier manifestations of the National Curriculum, where there was often a 95% correspondence with prior practice, so, with a minor tweak, it was business as usual. The original NC, introduced in 1987, was at a point in time where the National Writing Project was also being secured, so that, from the earliest days, the English opportunities were created through the lens of the NWP, a process based approach that encouraged children to think like writers. This eventually developed into the two page approach to writing, then the personal organiser, with all writing in one book to bring together many different elements, resulting in nearly 90% of our year six regularly operating at L4+ in reading and writing. Level descriptors were used as the means through which to encourage progress and challenging targets, rather than any focus on the associated numbers.

SATs, introduced from 1991, were not seen as overwhelming, so they did not alter in-school approaches, as outcomes were discussion documents for improvement, rather than sticks with which to beat schools.
Schools were able to retain a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum, challenging to all pupils, with the wider curriculum able to offer opportunities for extending activities in English and Maths, or using maths and English to support the wider curriculum. It offered many broadening experiences all of which, when embedded in developmental structures, created fertile ground for children to make progress.

The prelude to the 1997 election offered teachers a voice, should Labour be elected. This may well have been an important element in them being elected. Teachers wanted to be listened to. Within a very short time, it was clear that this was not to be, as the National Strategies began to be rolled out, English first, with daily exhortations to embed the Literacy and numeracy hours into school practice. This began, to some extent, media challenge to teacher practice, with local advisers adding to the national agenda with their own interpretations, thus creating further layers of complexity.

This point coincided with a more nit-picking approach, although the attempted imposition was more of political steamrollering.

Levels were divided into sub levels, which seemed to morph into Assessing Pupil Progress (APP) sheets, with ticklists or checklists of very detailed expectations of what should be seen in a particular sub level. Thus an intellectual step by step approach was articulated, which, if followed, meant teachers seeking to devise tasks that taught or tested a very narrow expectation. Widespread adoption, across all abilities, created an educational straitjacket for many children. Some ten years after the introduction of the original National Curriculum, sub-levels became the currency of progress and more created for data than as statements of progress.

Some advisers, consultants and inspectors added to the general fray by “sharing good practice”, which often meant short hand approaches which another school had devised, which had got them higher achievement levels. They often forgot to share the process development behind the shortcuts, which allowed them to exist within a bigger picture.
The adoption of a “best fit” approach meant that children could be moved “up” a level, while having some gaps in their understanding. In my own school, these gaps were noted as continuing personal needs, in order not to lose some significant elements. As a result, children were enabled to be partners in their progress, as they understood what was being sought on a personal level.

The National Curriculum has been reordered a number of times, the latest being in September 2014.

It was interesting recently, in my capacity as a Link Tutor for a local university, to have the County senior inspector share the County view of assessment. It was evident that some thought had been put to some top level decisions that, superficially reduce the decision workload, to a number of statements, such as emerging, secure and mastery, at three points in the year, with percentages achieving different points being a key indicator. However, this then opened up into what could only be described as APP+, with an array of statements derived from the NC, that had to be covered and achieved by every child, to be counted in their “secure + or-“ statements.

That we are at this situation was exemplified during the summer term, with reports of moderator visits, where there was significant evident that security could be compromised if evidence of a very small element was missing, or not clearly evidenced.

Is the system refining to a point where everyone loses sight of the big picture? Teachers need to be able to show children how the bits fit together, to make sense of the jigsaw. If they are not able to do that, then children, as learners, don’t have the abstract maturity at a young age to do that for themselves. The curriculum is not end to end activities. A high quality curriculum has a very clear developmental narrative that is clear to all participants. What was evident at the Learning First event was the number of schools seeking to create holistic models for the curriculum, within which assessment can become a narrative of individual achievement.

In many ways, judgements about children often centre on their articulacy, facility with concepts and an appropriate vocabulary or their ability to record their thoughts with some fluency and skill.

Holding onto the big picture of children as writers is a key element to getting through this effectively, if teachers are not to disappear in a puff of assessment fog. Setting writing tasks in the broader perspective of need can ensure progress.

I’d suggest the following, which could apply from KS1 into 3, allowing open structures that support personal challenge and development.

Writing workbooks need to be capable of supporting the whole process of writing; see 2 page approach. This can embed any of the current approaches to writing planning, (eg Talk for Writing or Big Writing) or enable other scaffolds.
Making books into personal organisers, with specific needs identified for each child, through forward thinking and targets or recording ongoing needs from marking. They are prompts for interaction between child and adult, supporting “interleaving” or “intervention” at a personal level. This approach can apply to topic areas or maths as well, to avoid individual loss of challenge.

In Primary, consider all writing in one book, especially to first draft, to enable clarity of focus on the writing process across a range of writing needs and from a range of prompts. This can create higher quality of writing, but also limit the quantity to allow this to happen. Progressive baselines of expectation can be more easily created. Spread into different books, children can write less well in other subjects.

In KS3, English teachers could support writing skills in other subjects with foci such as report writing, note taking, instructions, which could then be honed in the subject lesson. This could become a form of “interleaving”; practice basic skill, then embed within a real task.

Support spelling with children always making a least one attempt at a word before checking. This attempt enables the teacher to interrogate the child’s phonic and whole word understanding, focusing the teaching need.

​To be honest though, had I been the SoS for Education in 2010, I'd have stuck with the curriculum that was in play, tweaked the levelness statements and charged schools with achieving good level 4, for 80%+ of the children, which is a pretty good starting point for Secondary education. I'd then have introduced a new National Writing Project and some kind of maths and reading project alongside to improve the capability of all teachers across these subjects. A coherent, holistic approach, rather than the nit-picking soundbites that have characterised the past seven years.
​

I was thinking about mentors supporting trainees recently and came up with a couple of diagrams which I thought helped with that blog.

However, on reflection, I started to think more broadly about personal reflective journeys and how this impacts on teaching practices. I’m going to assume, from the outset, that anyone destined to be a successful teacher has a number of specific qualities, as described by the Teacher Standards, shown in this diagram; an organised, responsible person, who understands how to organise and run a good classroom for learning.
​

It is then a truism that every class being taught will be different, whether a teacher is new or experienced, the difference being that experience of a particular year group sensitises the teacher to possible expected outcomes, which, in practice are refined with subsequent experiences. Changing class, or school during, or at the year end, puts knowledge of a specific group of children into a new phase; a period of extended reflection.

Why did I link reflection with assessment? For a very simple reason that that’s exactly what any teacher is doing; thinking about what they know about a class of children and deciding on the best means to promote learning progress across all of them.

The “thinking standards” I’d see as 24652. The whole being a linked series of consequential decisions, premised on one particular; How well do you know the children in the class?  
​

If you look at the diagram above, it appears linear, but that might help to describe time, which is never circular. Every teacher starts a year with information, data, from a previous year. This may be simply numbers, or ARE (age-related expectation) statements. If they are lucky, this will be supplemented with additional information that builds a much broader picture of each child and their continuing needs.

The header in the diagram looks at the developing curriculum. In a blog on planning, I advocate the creation of an annual plan to look longer term, to ensure appropriate coverage, as well as consideration of the interlinked potential across the curriculum. As this was done as part of a closure in the July before the new year, one layer of planning was clear from the outset. As it started with a two-week, teacher-devised topic, as a “settler”, teachers could focus in that timeframe on getting to know the children better; putting flesh on the generalities of data.
​

Shorter-term planning, based more on the known needs of the children could, over time be more nuanced and focused on specific needs. Within the earlier blog on mentoring, I looked at the potential for a reflective partnership, with the mentor coaching and guiding the trainee along a thought process, which passes from the original plan into classroom action, where in-lesson thinking is seen.

Described as Teacher Standards 6 and 5, these are assessment and adaptation. I’ve always seen these as the thinking standards, in that they represent, to me, those points in a lesson where the original plan meets the reality of learner needs, causing the teacher to wonder, to themselves or aloud, what is causing an apparent issue for one or more learners. These are the “decision-making” points; intervene and address, leave and watch, do nothing, any of which could be a right or wrong decision. This is often only clear at the point of intervention. To me, this starts to meet with Dylan Wiliam’s description of the “reflective-reactive” teacher.

The reflective outcomes from any lesson can be simply summarised; did they “get it”? If the answer is yes, then there’s a point to move on; no, move back one place; some, how to address the evident need and at the same time cater for those who are secure. I would say that these decisions have always been the case, throughout my career, and probably always will be.

Some commentators see inherent bias in teacher actions. While we have a system that puts one adult in charge of the learning journeys of a cohort of children, we probably must accept that decisions are seen through their eyes, with or without their bias. Having been a classroom teacher before the National Curriculum in 1987, the language of progression, through the level descriptors did offer clearer criteria against which to make judgements.
​
Some also wish to promote testing as the only real route to assessment. Tests, to me, have always been just another point of information, to be used to inform decisions. If information that informs teacher decisions and subsequent interactions with learners is not forthcoming from a test, then I’d always question its utility. Summative points are only classroom MOTs; only really good on the day.
​

The reflective cycle is one of constant refinement, supporting the teacher rationale for decisions, in terms of task challenges and subsequent interactions. Every interaction is a chance to question, to respond, to model, reflect with the learner, alter course. The diagram above looks at trainee need. We cannot assume that every trainee is always thinking at this level, they need to be challenged to do so. For a significant period, they are making sense of the structural elements, before getting to those parts that really matter; the children.

Progress can be a difficult word to describe, but, if process and outcomes combine, with a sense of achieved criteria within a particular task, at least the learning journey of the children can be described, with an overview over time supporting that analysis.

Unpicking Standard 2 of the Teacher Standards with a trainee.

A feature of recent visits to ITE trainees has been the difficulty in evidencing Teacher Standard 2, Progress and Outcomes, yet it is the most significant of the standards, as teachers are always judged on their outcomes.

Many ITE routes require trainees to keep portfolios of children’s learning, and in fulfilling these requirements, often end up with a disparate collection of work, which has little meaning and limited impact on their understanding. It can have the appearance of busyness, but becomes a futile exercise in file-filling.

Annotating work collected with notes that describe the context of the learning, such as time taken, support and guidance given, as well as a qualitative assessment, helps with later reviews.

Formative thinking can be captured in annotated lesson plans, indicating where in-lesson decisions were required, to address evident needs and issues carried forward into the next lesson. This would highlight both the in-lesson thinking, and reflections after the event.

As a training exercise, the trainee and mentor should meet to discuss pieces of work from a focus child, recording their discussion outcomes as the basis for a future, short summative oral “report” from the trainee on the pupil. If this become a regular feature of the weekly review, it would inform both formative and summative assessment, supporting standards 6 and 5 as well, both of which can be more difficult to evidence as they are the “thinking” standards.

A trainee, especially on a Primary route, when asked at any point, to talk about a child, should be able to come up with a short summary. In the early days, it will necessarily be a little generic, based on early exposure, but, over time, becomes much more nuanced, enabling more refinement of the teacher-child interactions.

A simple summarising question, to stimulate discussion, might be; what impact have you had with (child)?
 

​See earlier post if interested.

The words coaching and mentoring seem to be regularly passing through my experience at the moment, partly as I am responsible for training mentors within a Teaching School Alliance and in my role as a university link tutor, but they also passed through a presentation by a colleague at Winchester University.

The role of a coach or mentor is focused on the person whom they are seeking to develop. The University example drew from sporting situations, where the guiding person is regularly seen as a coach.

Wondering what the difference is between a coach and a mentor, I came to the following conclusion; a coach is someone who supports development of discrete skills through exploration and improvement advice in each area, whereas a mentor, to me, signifies someone capable of nurturing a whole talent, always focused on the bigger goals, helping the trainee to maintain their own focus on agreed targets.

Being a coach and mentor is not unusual. Teacher mentors are, at one and the same time, coach and mentor, keeping the bigger picture in sight while exploring the details along the thinking journey. It is a positive, developmental eye kept on the process of becoming a teacher, as well as the outcomes.

Below is a diagram exploring the thinking process within teaching; based on the analyse, plan, do, review, record idea that I have explored in other posts. These statements link with the Teacher Standards as they currently exist; 2 Progress and outcomes (know your children), 4 Planning (order and organisation for lessons), 6 Assessment (thinking in and between lessons), 5 Adaptation (spotting needs and doing something about them). A return to 2 will be based on a more detailed understanding of the children, allowing subsequent information sharing and challenges to be more refined to needs and achievements.

The mentor role is to unpick the detail of each element within the whole, engaging in a reflective dialogue with the trainee, so that it can be put back together within the agreed lesson structure. I was introduced to the “whole-part-whole” approach by a PE inspector early in my career. While it can be overt in a PE lesson, it can also apply in any other learning situation.  

​But, and it’s a big but, the difficulties arise within the complexities that exist in several areas.

Consider again; 2 Progress and outcomes (know your children), 4 Planning (order and organisation for lessons), 6 Assessment (thinking in and between lessons), 5 Adaptation (spotting needs and doing something about them).
The first (2) encompasses the whole of child development for the age groups being taught, across a wide range of subject areas within the Primary Curriculum.

Subject knowledge, standard 3, as a teacher must include the pedagogy of how to teach the subject, across the age range, understanding the steps that children have to take to acquire proficiency, selecting of appropriate vocabulary to aid the narrative of the lesson and also having a good understanding of the available resources that are available in and outside the school.

Standard 4, planning, needs to consider planning over different timescales, long, medium and short term, to ensure coverage, use and application of the known in challenges. Planning structures can be a variable between schools, and imposed structures can become limiting factors for individuals. Plans should support the order and organisation of learning.

Standards 6 and 5 may well have to be the subject of much coaching, as they constitute the thinking teacher skills, inside and between lessons; reacting to evident needs and doing something about them, to affect the learning dynamics for individuals, groups or the whole class. Checkpoints and interventions (please don’t call them plenaries) to need are positive. Just stopping the class to show that you can is a waste of time.
​
And then we’re back to 2, a reflection on the lessons from the lesson, that will guide decisions for the next lesson, where adaptation may be required. It’s the get it, got it, good approach to assessment; get it, move on; not got it, review next lesson before moving on.

The essence of all good coaching and mentoring is communication, mutual understanding of the job in hand and how it will be tackled. Dialogue is, by far, the strongest approach, with the trainee and the mentor working out together the needs of the trainee and the best training path over the agreed timescale.

The plan is for the trainee to enact and the mentor to oversee and provide a developmental commentary, together with personalised areas for further development, which, in the case of teaching, can be areas to reflect on, to read about or signposting to discuss with a knowledgeable colleague.
​
The mentor role will always be to make the trainee as good as they can be. Limitations can be very personal, in understanding the complexities within each of the simple statements, such as planning and subject knowledge. It’s sometimes like having all the jigsaw pieces but not a clear picture of how they fit together. That’s a significant part of mentoring; holding onto the bigger picture. They are, after all, good at their craft.

​Shared experience is excellent CPD.

​I recognise that much thinking has been done in the area of assessment, by a wide variety of experts in the field. My interest, working with developing teachers, is to instil some working methods that will enhance their ability to make appropriate judgements about children, their achievements and their learning needs. This, to me, has underpinned my thinking about assessment for the whole of my career. 
​
​Assessment is thinking; about children and progress in learning and, if they’re not progressing, or progressing more rapidly than expected, doing something about the needs.

Think engaging and appropriate activity, think learning, think progress and outcomes, think on your feet and adapt for evident need, Think before, during and after the event. That is assessment; thinking, about each and every child’s response to the learning situation. Spotting those whose behaviours show lack of understanding or effort and those who may be finding the task easy.

High awareness, high surveillance and rapid and purposeful intervention; or in Dylan Wiliam's words "the reflective, reactive teacher".

​Make quality visible, so it can be discussed and evaluated openly and regularly.
​
To me, assessment is just another way of saying “Know your children, well, and get to know them even better”; to define and constantly refine where they are academically, socially and personally, so that they can be challenged or supported through carefully planned activities and interventions. Assessment in one sense is about data, but, more importantly, it is about individual children and their life chances, developed through the best available teaching and learning opportunities.

To be effective, assessment has to be seen as informed, rational judgement, leading to specific adaptation of intention, through a variety of means. Most assessment is situational, being at one level a sense that something is not going as it should and seeking to make whole again. It can also mean that under-expectation means that the level of challenge (perhaps for a few) has to be recalibrated.

Looking for inspiration in the thesaurus, the following revealed itself. These are some of the synonyms for assessment. It is possible to argue that all assessment if formative, even a test, as it informs subsequent decisions about the direction and speed of learning.

​
On my main blog, I have a number of posts on marking, looking to make it a realistic aspect of a teacher life, while ensuring that children can participate fully and utilise advice and feedback effectively.

Marking; keep it simple
Marking
Is marking moderation step 1
Back to marking

In “Marking; keep it simple”, the main premise is that the child targets should be on a fold out sheet that can be seen within a lesson, to guide teacher-child conversation, but also be a guide for marking later. It can incorporate non-negotiables, as they appear in earlier scripts.

In “Marking”, there is a discussion of marking as a dialogue between the teacher and the learner. I also question the place of homework where that generates marking load.

Homework can create additional marking need, but, if the activity is considered within the learning dynamics of the topic, does not necessarily need to do so.

Consider as home activity:-

• Draft from notes taken in a lesson, to be brought back as first draft, for editing in class.
• Summarise what has been learned into three key pieces of information. Boxed, it becomes a form of revision note.
• “Drawing and colouring” to save class time for discussion.
• Personal research which adds to the lesson.
• Reading a piece of text before the lesson.

None of the above needs detailed marking, as they are part of continuous effort.

As children mature as learners, they can begin to direct the teacher to areas for marking. If, say, adjectives have been the subject of learning, then the child can be asked to highlight the adjectives used, so they are easy to see.

In “is marking moderation step 1”, the teacher is acting as quality control, feeding back to the child where their work is ok and where there are areas for improvement. Teacher judgement is key to these stages.

Moderation stage 1; teacher child conversation.

Moderation stage 2; teacher-teacher conversation.

Moderation stage 3; school-area conversation.

Moderation stage 4; school-national outcomes conversation.

In “Back to Marking”, in addition to the above, I also suggest a number of key steps to consider.

• As an organisation, schools should set marking expectations that are clear, concise and achievable and have impact on learning.
• Plan mark loads over a known timescale, so that books are marked appropriately in timescales that enable feedback to be useful. If a whole week of devoted to “assessment activity” it is not surprising if workloads are heavy, especially as they usually back onto school holidays.

Learners should see themselves as active partners in work review. It should be done with and through, not always done to. Marking in a lesson is a very supportive strategy, especially for struggling learners, where immediacy of response is needed.

There are no easy solutions, as this area is often unique to the teacher and their interpretation of expectations. But it is worth significant consideration.
​
Assessment is normally based on clearly articulated or published criteria, with a judgement of whether the outcome demonstrates certain abilities, so that the assessor can say with some definition that “x can do…”. Some assessment situations also require a judgement of pass or not, with a pass at merit or distinction. These are bottom line capabilities, seen, for example in driving tests, music exams and Initial Teacher Education, each of which requires a level of competence in order to progress, with further guidance available.

Critique is what I think I do when I go to an art gallery or listen to music, usually starting from appreciation of what I like, through areas which make me less comfortable, to aspects that I don’t like. This is coupled with a rationale, so my critique is a descriptor, linked to personal insights. There has to be a “because”. As a reflective person, sometimes this is an insular activity, but, when in company, a shared reaction can become the stuff of dialogue, comparative and nuanced, and that’s the part that interests me in terms of classroom practice.

I think children and their teachers should engage in discussion of quality in work, in all subjects. With visualisers becoming a part of classroom practice, it is very easy to share outcomes and explore and diagnose aspects of the work, together, with children being enabled to explore the language and parameters of critique. Description, followed by speculation, enables the questioner to raise issues in the mind of the producer, to enable answers which might, in themselves, highlight the specific areas for improvement. I’d also expect classroom spaces to be awash with examples of quality work, on display, or in portfolios, which set the benchmark for expectation and reflection within the class. It is a holistic approach.

I am now beginning to view success criteria as surrogate mark schemes for a specific context. If they embed statements which clarify the steps that need to be taken in order to produce a piece of work of quality, they can be checked at the end to see if they have been followed.

However, on top of that, there needs to be the capacity to advise individuals about the quality within the finished work. These personalised targets, attached to the edge of the book, can summarise the qualities being sought from that learner adding to the potential for both critique and assessment. Assessment, in this scenario, becomes a “signing off” activity, with the critique proving a qualitative set of statements.

Learners can engage with success criteria and I have visited a number of schools that embed systems where learners have to highlight areas of their work which, in their opinion, demonstrate a specific success criterion or personal target, which focuses marking. Self-diagnosis of outcomes is an essential skill of editing, drafting and redrafting activities.

The TES on 19.09.2017, reported the outcomes of a report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust which argued that the subject was not being given enough priority or time by most of the nation's primaries.

They found that on average, across all primary year groups, more than half of classes (58%) did not get two hours of science a week. Figures based on two surveys of teachers. Wellcome also identified a fear among teachers that children would ask a question they would not know the answer to, and a belief that science is messy, expensive, time-consuming. The study was published to mark the launch of Explorify, a new free digital resource for school science.

The history of science for children before the age of 11 has been a chequered one. Being old enough to have started at school in the 1950s, I don’t remember science apart from the occasional nature table. However, it was the age of chemistry sets and, receiving one for my 6th birthday, my bedroom was soon infiltrated by test-tube filled solutions of different colours. The brown stain from spilling some potassium permanganate on the mantelpiece was the end of that and I was banished to the shed. I did write an illustrated story of doing chemistry at home which was published in the school magazine.

Secondary, grammar school, meant an introduction to “real” science, with separate chemistry, physics and biology throughout. My early interest in all things scientific inevitably led to a spell as a lab assistant for a year before starting teacher training; again with science, but later changing to environmental education.

Primary science, by the early 1970s, had become a practical part of school life, and in the context of the integrated day, was facilitated as a group activity, with perhaps eight children working in this way, seeking solutions to challenges. The Nuffield Science 5-13 books provided both the hooks and the challenges, but also the necessary scientific background that was easily available to teachers. Local teacher centres also put on extended courses to support developing teachers. There was significant collective sharing of ideas and challenges.

This way of working continued, in my experiences in Hampshire, through to around 1997, when various strategies appeared, these included QCA guidance on teaching science. While I can accept that, in some authorities, science may not have been a strength, these QCA schemes were a form of recipe science, or science by numbers. As a headteacher, I was determined that we would never use the QCA schemes, as they would downgrade what we were offering.

​Working with successive science coordinators and an inspector visit every two years to upskill the coordinator, we developed topic specifications as the basis for each area. Some now call such documents knowledge organisers, but ours were extended documents, with expectations beyond just the knowledge.

What makes a teacher?
Thinking a little more about teacher thinking.

Teachers need to know the subject at hand, which may be different for a graduate specialist in a Secondary school compared to a Primary generalist, responsible for a range of subjects, where some areas of knowledge will be stronger than others. However, for both, the need to know is key. Where any teacher reaches a point where it is their own knowledge that is a barrier to children’s progress, this must be addressed urgently. In the first years, this is likely to be a constant need, especially if there is a change of year-group, or perhaps school, where the new context has different schemes. This puts inevitable pressures on new teachers, so high quality mentoring and in-school documentation should be available for everyone.

Teachers get to know their children, to varying degrees, depending on their contact through the week, but they are trained to understand learner development through the age range. Primary teachers spend 25 hours a week with their classes; a secondary teacher may see each class for two hours a week. The difference in interaction time embeds different levels of nuance of knowledge of the children. Both phases of teacher should be aware of the whole achievement range of their age range. One tweet today, reporting on Singapore education called this “horizon thinking” … what came before and what comes afterwards…

They ensure that behaviour ensures learning can take place. Working within agreed and clearly articulated school approaches, maintenance of behaviours that allow learning is fundamental.

They will have ordered the agreed curriculum into discrete themes, topics or programmes of study. Order and organisation are essential to progression in learning. Some topic areas “feed forward” into successive topics. Therefore, what is now often being called “interleaving” can be planned, although often it is recall through circumstance and a spiral curriculum.
They order and organise the coherence of their plans over a known timescale, ensure that classroom and the resources for learning support the learning proposed. The use of space and resources are in teacher control. How furniture is arranged to suit teaching, and resources are available for easy access and return, embeds an element of control, reducing some potential causes of behaviour issues.

Their plans seek to match the needs of the subject with the needs of the children, providing appropriate challenge to all abilities. This is the first stage of “differentiation”, which used to be termed “match and challenge”, with challenge being the most significant aspect. What are children being challenged to think about, talk about and attempt to do?

They plan learning over a timescale to ensure a dynamic is established which fully engages learners, in and out of school, and assures the imparting of a body of knowledge derive from the wealth of local and wider information and experiences. Spiral curricula, interleaving, home tasks, “flipped learning”, working memory, long term memory, practice, rehearsal all have a part to play over time.
​
An example…

They create tasks appropriate to the challenge, with an understanding of the subsequent developmental stages of the learning, so that by engaging with the learners while on task, they can guide and support their developing understanding. Task challenge can embed independence of thought, planning and action, grit and resilience through reflection/evaluation, revision as a group(team) or individually. An engaged teacher spots needs, coaching and teaching to need. Compare with a PE lesson elements; apply in other subjects.

They ensure that any input gets across the essential information on which the lesson is to be founded, through a variety of means, which are enhanced by the availability of in-class ICT facilities. Exposition has always been a significant part of all teaching. The teacher at the front, speaking clearly and articulately, directly, explicitly, using a variety of imagery to support, video, modelling with concrete resources or through diagrams, engaging with evident audience need in timely manner. That technologies are available, e.g. visualisers, to make this exposition and modelling even more overt, should mean knowledge sharing of a higher quality.

Teachers are reflective storytellers, have a broad subject vocabulary that enables subtle retelling with appropriate links made at different levels of need, with a high degree of audience awareness.

They interact with outcomes, orally in class and in writing after the lesson, while marking books. They are constantly making judgements or assessments, on an individual, group or class level. Within lessons, teachers are audience aware, looking for signs that imply lack of understanding. They ask questions, closed to elicit discrete knowledge, but also open ended to allow broader thinking, explanation or articulation of thoughts.

They use the outcomes as new reference points against which to plan the next steps. Outcomes offer another layer of reflection on assimilation of learning, with two layers of response, teacher, what needs to be further addressed, child, what do I need to do to improve? The one potentially impacts on the next lesson, the other might simply be feed forward notes for consideration in subsequent work. Teachers talk now of whole class feedback. If a teacher notices, because of a lesson, that a large proportion of the class don’t “get it”, the next step has to be a revision to secure that learning. ‘Twas ever thus. Equally, by identifying a group with need, to offer challenge to the secure group, enabling detailed remodelling to another, bringing them up to speed, would appear sensible.

Teachers add broader value to schools in many, many ways. Working in teams, subject, year group, whole school, thinking, working and occasionally playing together, the team ethic has an impact on daily school life through personal interactions, setting a positive tone among the adults. Some offer specialist clubs or other interests, including subject expertise to the benefit of the whole.

They undertake personal CPD that enhances their practice. Starting as high-quality thinkers, most teachers are life-long learners, so engage with each other to share expertise, formally or more often, informally. Many attend local events, through subject groups and cluster initiatives, perhaps travelling to specialist conferences, in school time, or, as is currently the case, to a plethora of volunteer organised conferences, Teachmeets, TLT, Pedagoo, ResearchEd, Northern (southern) Rocks, Primary Rocks, Reading/Writing Rocks…  Equally, a number also interact via social media, such as Twitter, which then acts as a conduit into conferences.
​
Teaching requires a collegiate approach to thinking and self-development. One starts as a novice and assimilates information from many sources, creating a sense of self that contributes to professional confidence. Expertise develops over time, but, as in all learning, there is always a little more that can be found.

​Teaching requires life-long learners.

“The teacher’s job is not to transmit knowledge, nor to facilitate learning. It is to engineer effective learning environments for the students. The key features of effective learning environments are that they create student engagement and allow teachers, learners, and their peers to ensure that the learning is proceeding in the intended direction. The only way we can do this is through assessment. That is why assessment is, indeed, the bridge between teaching and learning.”
― Dylan Wiliam, Embedded Formative Assessment

The term plenary has crossed my path this week. It’s an interesting word, which seemed to derive from the three-part lesson that was seen as good practice when the National Strategies came about. It was the final part, the drawing together of what had occurred during the lesson and deriving significant learning points to take forward into subsequent lessons.

Or that was the supposed intention.  

For some, the plenary became a last activity to fill the final five minutes of a lesson, which may or may not, have a bearing on any learning during the lesson. It stood as a finale, in the same way as “starter” activities could also be separate activities, argued as a means to get children thinking in a particular subject at the transitional stage of a lesson.

This week, plenaries have been discussed as in-lesson interactions, where teachers spot a need and engage with a proportion of, or the whole class, to address a misconception. The problem with in-lesson “plenaries”, in the hands of an inexperienced practitioner, is that they can be done for the sake of being seen to be done.

Interventions, of any description, need to have a rational purpose.

“I’m stopping this child, group, class lesson, because I need to check x, in order to reassess, or reset where the learning is going.” It can even be articulated in that way to the children. It might be an occasion to use different resources or models, scaffolding ideas to ensure some additional information is embedded, to be incorporated into a task, allowing a greater degree of success in the outcome. It is the point where the teacher assumes the role of coach or mentor, unpicking the fine details of, sometimes individual need, fine tuning teaching and learning demands appropriately.

It is, to all intents and purposes, the point where teacher standards 6&5 impact on standard 2; spotting a need, addressing it and ensuring some positive achievements. In Dylan Wiliam’s terms, it is the point where the reflective teacher becomes reactive, based on the evidence of the child, group or class needs.

In other words, just good teaching.
​
“feedback should cause thinking. It should be focused; it should relate to the learning goals that have been shared with the students; and it should be more work for the recipient than the donor. Indeed, the whole purpose of feedback should be to increase the extent to which students are owners of their own learning,”
― Dylan Wiliam, Embedded Formative Assessment
​