Sometimes, watching or listening to an education discussion can appear to suggest two or more people looking at the same thing and seeing exactly the same idea in totally opposing ways. Black and white, good and bad, right and wrong; the arguments rage backwards and forwards. While this can be mildly entertaining to watch, and even if one realises that it is possibly a set up, it might suggest serious compatibility issues which then impact on learners, where continuity and consistency provide the backbone for progress. It can feel as if some specific topics become taboo, which is a shame. If we all listened to the “common sense” rhetoric of politicians, we’d become totally confused.
Summer holiday 2013 and the October 2014 half term saw a number of “discussions” via Twitter, not all of them edifying. Some people seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing. It can cause a bit of a Twitter stir, increasing traffic to a site, so could be seen as a form of personal advertising.
In at least one case, I have wondered if the dilemma was based on the participants’ teaching situations, and as such began to consider the telescope as a metaphor; your personal clarity depends on which end you choose to put to your eye, or in Nelson’s case, supposedly, whether you can see or not with that eye, or choose not to as the apocryphal stories have it.
Summer holiday 2013 and the October 2014 half term saw a number of “discussions” via Twitter, not all of them edifying. Some people seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing. It can cause a bit of a Twitter stir, increasing traffic to a site, so could be seen as a form of personal advertising.
In at least one case, I have wondered if the dilemma was based on the participants’ teaching situations, and as such began to consider the telescope as a metaphor; your personal clarity depends on which end you choose to put to your eye, or in Nelson’s case, supposedly, whether you can see or not with that eye, or choose not to as the apocryphal stories have it.
Telescopes can aid sight, but if they are unfocussed or used badly, they are blurred or miss the point.
As a young child, my dad had a telescope and I’d enjoy putting it on a wall for stability and looking around the neighbourhood, delighting when we went on holiday to Paignton, where the rocks provided the stability and I could explore Torbay. I had to learn to get the length right and organise the eye piece, but, that done, the sheer delight of bringing boats and fishermen into close up was a revelation, matched only by the arrival one Christmas of a microscope. I still cherish my copy of “Common Objects of the Microscope” written by the Rev J.G.Wood in 1872, bought for the princely sum of 6d in a second hand book shop. At the time, I couldn’t read the words, but the pictures were interesting. As for the Observer series…rapture.
As a young child, my dad had a telescope and I’d enjoy putting it on a wall for stability and looking around the neighbourhood, delighting when we went on holiday to Paignton, where the rocks provided the stability and I could explore Torbay. I had to learn to get the length right and organise the eye piece, but, that done, the sheer delight of bringing boats and fishermen into close up was a revelation, matched only by the arrival one Christmas of a microscope. I still cherish my copy of “Common Objects of the Microscope” written by the Rev J.G.Wood in 1872, bought for the princely sum of 6d in a second hand book shop. At the time, I couldn’t read the words, but the pictures were interesting. As for the Observer series…rapture.
If you are an Early Years or Infant teacher, by definition you are dealing with extremely young children, many of whom start school performing behind their peers, while some will already have progressed significantly. Immediately there is a range of ability and need. The EYFS teachers and assistants will spend a significant amount of time during that first year tracking each individual with care against a wide range of criteria, based on their observations of the children reacting in play and other learning situations. They will have looked back at earlier experiences, discussed these with parents and will also be looking forward to the needs of transition into Key Stage 1. This is a tightly focussed period of assessment, the outcomes of which inform the receiving teacher.
As a child progresses through the system, there is a developing track record of experience and any necessary support having been given, so teachers know what the children have done and should have a clear view of their ability. Internal moderation is likely to have added to the quality and acceptance of the judgements made.
In a Primary school, the growth ethic is very strong, looking to build on the positives, while subtly ironing out the areas where difficulty is being encountered, in the knowledge that a young learner has a lot to learn and their school career is long. It’s easy to accentuate what is not known and depress performance. In many ways, the growth ethic has been supported for many years by levelness descriptors, showing children where they are in their learning and where they need to improve. In the current climate, it is likely that many Primary schools will choose to hold to these as they provide a suitable progression ladder, while exploring alternatives.
School contexts can create diverse needs. In a post on personalisation, I gave examples from a variety of London based IQM schools dealing with significantly different issues from many others. They had to develop approaches which were significantly individual in nature.
Transfer can be a significant time of difficulty. There are significant discussions between schools before transfer, visits between schools, with vulnerable pupils having a greater degree of access and support to aid the transfer process. Detailed records are created and shared. Used effectively they can lead to a rapid start to the new school setting. Ignored, teaching can be less well structured, with less positive outcomes and relationships as a result.
As a child progresses through the system, there is a developing track record of experience and any necessary support having been given, so teachers know what the children have done and should have a clear view of their ability. Internal moderation is likely to have added to the quality and acceptance of the judgements made.
In a Primary school, the growth ethic is very strong, looking to build on the positives, while subtly ironing out the areas where difficulty is being encountered, in the knowledge that a young learner has a lot to learn and their school career is long. It’s easy to accentuate what is not known and depress performance. In many ways, the growth ethic has been supported for many years by levelness descriptors, showing children where they are in their learning and where they need to improve. In the current climate, it is likely that many Primary schools will choose to hold to these as they provide a suitable progression ladder, while exploring alternatives.
School contexts can create diverse needs. In a post on personalisation, I gave examples from a variety of London based IQM schools dealing with significantly different issues from many others. They had to develop approaches which were significantly individual in nature.
Transfer can be a significant time of difficulty. There are significant discussions between schools before transfer, visits between schools, with vulnerable pupils having a greater degree of access and support to aid the transfer process. Detailed records are created and shared. Used effectively they can lead to a rapid start to the new school setting. Ignored, teaching can be less well structured, with less positive outcomes and relationships as a result.
Anyone looking back from the rarefied heights of GCSE or “A” level teaching might feel impelled to ask questions about their students, some of whom will have arrived with an A*, while others might have a C; the latter group, by definition will demonstrate lesser skills than the A* students. The removal of levelness has been seemingly well received among Secondary writers, but I wonder if this is because the exam systems leading to GCSE provide a suitable system from which it is possible to extrapolate progression criteria and A levels will also have specified criteria. From their inception, the NC levels were seen as potentially tying up with GCSE grades, with level 7 being a C equivalent. Then the argument is context- not in the context of a specific course of study. The arguments can appear circular.
Looking down on the preceding stage, the following questions have been articulated at some time;
They also forget, as do adults, often as a result of not playing with an idea and fixing it in memory. They may not yet have trained their memory to retain, organise or recall essential information with fluency.
Every child is unique, despite sharing characteristics with their peers. Rather than looking at them through the telescope, a magnifying glass or microscope would be more useful, seeking to identify the specific aspects which need support and which are sufficiently secure to be challenged.
According to annual statements, 25% of year six children leave Primary School unable to read, a global statement. Many of these children will have achieved level 3 at a high level, so they can read, but perhaps not yet sufficiently well. To look at the detail of individualised needs and to provide discrete remediation to those needs is essential if learners are to continue to make progress.
It’s the little things that matter, within the bigger picture of progress. Learning is the sum of the parts; know the children well and keep refining the picture, so that engagement and interventions are clear, have purpose and improve outcomes.
Look up, look down, look around; it is a case of 360 degree, 20:20 vision. Whose misconception is it anyway?
Looking down on the preceding stage, the following questions have been articulated at some time;
- What did they do in nursery, EYFS, Infants, Juniors, years 7-9 and why can’t they all do the same things?
- What have they been doing for the last x years?
- Surely there’s a proven approach which should have been used?
They also forget, as do adults, often as a result of not playing with an idea and fixing it in memory. They may not yet have trained their memory to retain, organise or recall essential information with fluency.
Every child is unique, despite sharing characteristics with their peers. Rather than looking at them through the telescope, a magnifying glass or microscope would be more useful, seeking to identify the specific aspects which need support and which are sufficiently secure to be challenged.
According to annual statements, 25% of year six children leave Primary School unable to read, a global statement. Many of these children will have achieved level 3 at a high level, so they can read, but perhaps not yet sufficiently well. To look at the detail of individualised needs and to provide discrete remediation to those needs is essential if learners are to continue to make progress.
It’s the little things that matter, within the bigger picture of progress. Learning is the sum of the parts; know the children well and keep refining the picture, so that engagement and interventions are clear, have purpose and improve outcomes.
Look up, look down, look around; it is a case of 360 degree, 20:20 vision. Whose misconception is it anyway?
RSS Feed
