The Montsaye Approach EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 1 ISSUE 3 Jonathan, Laura and I spent two days at the Sunday Times Festival of Education in June meeting and listening to the foremost experts in education in the UK. I realise what that sounds like to many teachers in classrooms and I am acutely aware that many of those ‘experts’ could learn a lot from returning to the day to day rigour of classroom teaching. But I always weigh my natural teacher’s sneer at self-appointed experts against the fact that I have neither their access to research nor their time to really explore what is effective. A number of themes emerged. Encouragingly, whenever we met up to discuss what we had learnt from visiting different talks, we tended to concur that whatever we had heard was not fundamentally different to the work we were already undertaking at Montsaye. The themes included:
The importance of using evidence-based research to underpin decisions at all levels The importance of trust and its complex relationship with accountability The deficiencies of data and the wider importance of assessment and feedback
The fact that we are exploring these areas already is, of course, not a reason for complacency. In fact there is lots to do before we can really say Montsaye is an Outstanding school. But we seem to be on the right journey. I have learnt a lot over the last year at Montsaye. It’s a great place to work and we have some amazing people working here. But when I want to be stimulated further I look outside Montsaye and my first point of contact with the wider world of education is Twitter. I know I keep promoting the use of Twitter for CPD, but have a look at the article below from the TES if you don’t believe me how useful social media can be to teachers. In the first term next year our focus for CPD is the idea ‘What is learning?’ As a starting point for this debate you may want to look at the articles by David Didau and Rob Coe. There is a tear off sheet at the back of this bulletin for teaching staff to indicate the session they will attend. All teaching staff must attend at least one session, however you can attend any session you would like to attend. Support staff are welcome to attend any session that interests them, however there is no minimum requirement. There are also some good ideas from across the academy in this issue. I hope we can expand these ideas in future issue and share some of the learning from our coaching trios. Finally I am particularly pleased that a group of sixth form students have contributed an article about working class underachievement. This is truly a journal for everyone at Montsaye. Enjoy your summer! Peter Tomkins July 2015 1
The Montsaye Approach WHY TWITTER COULD HOLD THE SECRET TO BETTER #CPD Adi Bloom from TES (www.tes.co.uk) Study finds it is more effective than traditional training Get your hashtags ready: Twitter is a far more effective source of CPD than more traditional approaches, research has found. Indeed, teachers believe they derive more from the 140 characters of a tweet than they do from several hours of seminars or lectures. Academics from two US universities surveyed 755 members of school staff about Twitter. They found that the most popular use of the social media website was for CPD, with many praising Twitter’s advantages over more traditional methods. Twitter, many teachers told researchers, allowed them to create a virtual staffroom, filled entirely with their own choice of colleagues. Indeed, a middle school English teacher explained: “I have learned so much from other teachers. It has transformed my teaching. And this is my 18th year [in the profession].” Another English teacher said: “I have [got] more useful professional development in the past year of using Twitter than I have in the entire previous decade of district-provided CPD.” And a headteacher added: “It has completely changed my outlook and knowledge base like no other medium I have encountered.” Dr Daniel Krutka, of Texas Woman’s University, spoke about the use of Twitter for CPD at the American Educational Research Association annual conference, held in Chicago last month. His paper, written with Dr Jeffrey Carpenter of Elon University in North Carolina, was published in the Journal of Research on Technology in Education (bit.ly/TwitterCPD). Anytime, anywhere Many of the surveyed teachers praised the convenience and accessibility of Twitter-based development. “It’s 24/7 CPD which I can do from home, school, public transport – anywhere,” a primary teacher said. Others added that Twitter could easily be personalised to suit their own needs. By contrast, they complained that traditional CPD tended to take a one-size-fits-all approach – or, as one -science teacher said, it “seems to be tailored for the lowest common denominator”. The potential for collaboration was particularly appreciated by teachers in rural areas, who could often feel isolated. One rural teacher said that all 13 teachers in her school had been in the profession for fewer than three years. So Twitter offered vital access to experienced teachers’ opinions.
2
The Montsaye Approach Teachers of niche subjects, such as psychology or Classics, told the researchers that they valued the opportunity to build up a virtual subject community. Headteachers and new teachers also welcomed the emotional support provided by Twitter contacts. “It is nice to know I’m not alone,” one first-year -teacher said. This sentiment is echoed by Sarah Simons, who runs the further education Twitter group #UKFEchat: “You can be in a department with 20 other people, but you can be the only one doing as much learning as you can, and feeling like the only weirdo in the group,” Ms Simons said. “Going on Twitter, you find all the other weirdos, who are just as interested in learning as you are.” The surveyed teachers appreciated the ability to exchange resources online, as well as to point one another towards useful articles or blogs. And several mentioned using social media to crowdsource lesson plans. Online chats were also popular. In addition, social media allows teachers access to experts in their fields. “We’ve talked to several authors on Twitter,” one primary teacher said. Ms Simons has seen this, too. “Something that’s really powerful is the hierarchy-free element of Twitter,” she said. “You have conversations based on what you’re interested in, what you know and who you get on with. To have communication where all the guff is taken out the middle – it’s very empowering to all involved.” The academics conclude that local authorities should consider ways in which they can use, and learn from, teacher activity online. Use of Twitter, they suggest, could potentially count as official CPD. “School leaders might also…embrace the qualities of Twitter CPD that our respondents valued, such as immediacy, personalisation, differentiation, community and positivity,” they write. ‘Let people take control of their learning’ US teacher Tom Whitby, one of the founders of twice-weekly Twitter group #edchat, believes that Twitter has highlighted a key failing in conventional CPD. “There’s a big difference between adult learning and child learning,” says Mr Whitby, who has nearly 60,000 Twitter followers. “Adults want to learn something one day and use it the next. “But, for decades, professional development has involved teaching adults like children: you put them in rows and you lecture them. People are looking for something else and Twitter is filling that void. “Twitter fits into the model of adult learning much better than previous forms of professional development. People like taking control of their own learning.”
3
The Montsaye Approach CONTENTS Editor’s Introduction to Volume 1 Issue 3 .............................................................................................. 1 Why Twitter could hold the secret to better #CPD ................................................................................ 2 Adi Bloom from TES (www.tes.co.uk) Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 4 What is Learning? ................................................................................................................................... 7 David Didau (@learningspy – www.learningspy.co.uk) So what should we do (that hasn’t failed yet)? .................................................................................... 10 Rob Coe The Montsaye Approach: GREAT TEACHING AND LEARNING Great Teaching and Learning Ideas....................................................................................................... 16 Karolyn Claypole, Peter Tomkins, Laura Wickens, James Wiggins, Kay Thomas, Jon Radborne Assessment for Learning in Maths ........................................................................................................ 20 Louisa Copping and Chris Raine A Learning Cycle .................................................................................................................................... 23 Laura Green Becoming Influential with Troubled Students in Schools: Surprisingly Effective Therapeutic Communication Techniques ................................................................................................................. 24 Lise Griffiths The Montsaye Approach: Challenging Underachievement WORKING CLASS UNDERACHIEVEMENT - THE SOCIOLOGY ................................................................. 28 Makayla Askew, Rosie Griffiths and Lydia Ravenscroft Cultural Capital
28
Marketisation
28
Cultural Deprivation
29
Language and Speech Patterns
29
Attitudes
30
Subcultures
30
Labelling
31
Material Deprivation
31
Possible Solutions to White Working Class Under Achievement (taken from my presentation – September 2014) ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Martin Jones Noam Chomsky on the Dangers of StandardiSed Testing .................................................................... 35
4
The Montsaye Approach The Montsaye Approach: Where are we now? Teaching and Learning Review - 30 April 2015 ..................................................................................... 38 Differentiation
38
Feedback
41
Enjoyment and engagement
43
Policy Clarification................................................................................................................................. 46 Staff Training Days – Tuesday 1 September 2015 and Wednesday 2 September 2015 ....................... 47
5
The Montsaye Approach In every lesson it would be usual for the following to occur:
There are high expectations of students: “a culture and ethos of scholastic excellence, where the highest achievement in academic work is recognised” (Ofsted 2014). The Learning Objective(s) for the lesson are made clear to all the pupils in an appropriate manner To aid learning students are arranged according to a plan or method set by the teacher Prior learning is reviewed and links made to future learning: Where are we going? Have we got there? What have we learnt?
There are usually a range of activities that “engages and includes all pupils with work that is challenging enough and meets the pupils’ needs as identified by the teachers” (Ofsted 2014). Students’ curiosity is stimulated, often through a starter activity Every student has the opportunity for verbal or other informal feedback from the teacher The teacher uses AfL techniques, for example questioning to check on progress There are opportunities for: o Participation o Praise o Reflection o Engagement with feedback
At least every fortnight it would be usual for the following to occur:
Some lesson time for directed improvement and reflection which might involve: o Teacher-student dialogue about learning o Self-assessment of learning needs o Peer assessment o Planned assessment or weekly test o Written feedback on targets and progress Homework is set according to the school policy Modelling of good examples Numeracy and Literacy input
Every term it would be usual for the following to occur:
Termly scheme of work and end of scheme summative assessment Moderation of department marking Review by subject leader of the classes progress Differentiated group work Levels and/or comments on a substantial piece of extended, usually written, work Written feedback
6
The Montsaye Approach WHAT IS LEARNING? David Didau (@learningspy – www.learningspy.co.uk) Go on, ask yourself, ask other teachers, ask some students: what is learning? It’s a pretty big question isn’t it? One that I might have felt hopelessly unequal to answering before reading Graham Nuthall‘s The Hidden Lives of Learners. This book draws together one of the most impressive attempts to find out what goes on in classrooms that I’ve ever come across. Briefly, Nuthall and his team wired up a range of classrooms and recorded everything that went down over several months before then transcribing these recordings and attempting to crunch the data they gathered. In doing so they learned some surprising things and had other, fairly obvious, things confirmed. Nuthall tells us that despite the fact that everyone goes through essentially the same learning process and that we can dismiss Learning Styles as bunk, background knowledge, experiences, interests and motivations can be wildly different. Learning is making connections between all this stuff which kids bring to the classroom with what they encounter in the classroom. Because of this diversity of experience, roughly a third of what students learn will be unique to them. Let me put that another way: one in three things a student will have learned by the end of a teaching sequence will not be known by any other student. In a class of 30 students that’s a hell of lot of unique knowledge. I may have a clear learning objective which I intend all students to learn but there is an awful lot of stuff happening which dwarfs my feeble attempts. Over Christmas I watched Professor Bruce Hood’s series of lectures entitled Meet Your Brain. They were fascinating and hugely engaging. I have a clear and abiding memory of enjoying them. Sadly though I am able recall almost nothing of what he lectured on. Why is that? Why was I unable to retain information I found interesting? Am I especially dim? I hope not. The main reason is that I didn’t have sufficient prior knowledge about psychology and neuroscience to integrate the new information I was encountering into my existing mental map and my poor over-burdened brain simply raised the white flag and bugled its surrender. This is what happens in classrooms all the time. Apparently kids will know about 40-50% of whatever we’re trying to teach them. This sounds straightforward enough: why don’t we just teach them the 50-60% they don’t already know? Well there are two reasons. Firstly, they don’t all know the same 40-50% of stuff and secondly if you attempt to teach kids something about which they know absolutely nothing they’ll have nothing to connect it to and it won’t make the perilous journey from working memory to long term memory. That is to say, they’ll forget it fairly quickly. Another prerequisite for learning is the number of times we come across information. For some reason three times appears to be the charm. This is something 80s hiphop combo De La Soul knew all about and attempted to communicate in their classic track The Magic Number. I guess they could have been a little less opaque, but still: the answer was out there. This chimes deeply and sonorously with what I’ve already written about looping learning. Single, isolated experiences don’t turn into learning; students need opportunities to come at things from different angles in order to make sense of new information and slot it usefully into the network of stuff they already know.
7
The Montsaye Approach Nuthall’s research suggests students go though the following process when they get given new information: 1. Try to make sense of new information by relating it to and evaluating it against known concepts 2. Hold new information in working memory and connect it to other new information and experiences If the new information is sufficiently integrated then it will be ‘learnt’, that is, retained in long term memory. Nuthall says that, “learning does not come directly from classroom activities; learning comes from the way students experience those activities.” This difference may seem unimportant but it’s the difference between teaching & learning. Or, as Pam Hook puts it, What’s Happening in the Ampersand. What’s important is how students try to make sense of what we tell ’em. Students are attempting to do this all the time: sometimes it results in them learning and sometimes not. The thing is that a good deal of what students learn they learn from each other. And a lot of what they learn from each other is wrong. Nuthall’s research reveals that students learn better when they can self-select or self-generate activities. This means that they need to work in groups and have opportunities to interact with each other. If they don’t have these opportunities they’ll still do it but in a way that teachers won’t be able to monitor and create misinformation. In whole class direct instruction the teacher attempts to literally direct the students’ learning. Students will be reacting to new concepts and information whether the teacher is aware of it or not. They talk to themselves and each other all the time. When the class is set up for students to direct their own learning the teacher can listen to this because it will be explicit. When the teacher is at the front, directing, they cannot. Either because they’re unaware of it or because they perceive it as bad behaviour. Much of what students know is bound up in their peer culture. By varying teaching approaches we can affect the social standing of the students we teach. If we only ever provide traditional academic routes to learning them the ‘most able’ will have all the power and the ‘least able will quickly, and rightly, become disaffected. Finally, learning should be memorable. Students don’t just learn the curriculum, they remember the context in which they learnt it. If something dramatic and exciting happens then they’ll remember it just as I remember my biology teaching accidentally dropping a human skeleton on the floor. So, how students experience an activity is as much part of what they learn as the intended curriculum content. If they listen to lecture or fill in a worksheet they are learning to be passive and to fill in gaps in someone else’s work. If they are active in their learning then they’ll learn that learning happens when you take responsibility and manage yourself. As I write that, I know that plenty of folks will find reasons to disagree. My view is that we have to find a middle way. Learning should be a balance between finding out information from a trusted source (the teacher) and discovering it for yourself. For myself, I often acquire new ideas from reading but it’s not until I work out ways to apply these ideas in the classroom that they become a part of my teaching arsenal. So, if that’s learning, how should we teach? 1. We need to keep in mind how students’ memories work. Both Nuthall and Willingham are clear that ‘thinking’ cannot happen independently – it has to be tied to stuff that students already know. Therefore we have to design lessons that use their existing knowledge and understanding. 8
The Montsaye Approach 2. We have to build in opportunities for students to revisit new ideas. I don’t mean that we should simply repeat lessons – the information should be presented in different ways which allows them to see connections with what has gone before. 3. In order to monitor what students are learning we need to assess what they know at the beginning of a teaching sequence or scheme of learning and compare this to what they know at the end. We’ve already seen that everyone will start off knowing different things and this will result in them learning different things. 4. If we’re going to do everything above then we’re probably not going to be able to get through everything in the curriculum. We need to decide which is more important: teaching or learning. Do we want to make sure that we teach as much as possible or that students learn as much as possible? You can’t have both. We should therefore focus on those areas which provide the biggest payoffs for students. As an English teacher I need to accept that I cannot cover a whole text in the depth I’d like – I should instead concentrate on extracts that provide the opportunity to link to other parts of the course. 5. Because much of what students learn comes from their peers we need to be aware of the culture in our classroom. We will benefit from knowing what they’re interested in, what they’re good at and who is popular. If we allow opportunities for different students to shine at different times then we will validate all the children we teach. Setting up tasks which require a combination of different skills and knowledge is perhaps the best way of ensuring that there is an opportunity for everyone to learn because everyone will get to connect new information to different sets of prior knowledge. 6. Because students learn best when self-selecting and self-generating experiences we need to teach them how to do this better. Teaching students to ‘learn how to learn’ has become somewhat tarnished of late. We need to deliver curriculum content in such a way that will also learn effective ways of learning it. Over time we can train them in the good habits which they can apply on their own to learn new concepts. Whether this sounds like good sense or not, I’d recommend reading Nuthall’s book. His description of how his research was conducted is fascinating and makes it very hard to argue with his conclusions. There is a copy of Graham Nuthall’s The Hidden Lives Of Learners in the CPD section of the school library.
9
The Montsaye Approach SO WHAT SHOULD WE DO (THAT HASN’T FAILED YET)? Rob Coe Our strategy should be to make the best choices we can from the best evidence available, to try it out, with an open mind, and see if it works. If it does, we can keep doing it; if not, we will learn from that experience and try something else. I think there are four strategies that are worth trying. 1. Think hard about learning The success of the Toolkit in generating interest in evidence-based strategies has led to many invitations for me to talk about it to groups of teachers. When I get to the bit about the strategies that are popular with many teachers but the evidence suggests are not effective enough to justify their costs (e.g. reducing class size, employing teaching assistants, ability grouping) the discussion is often quite challenging. When our intuition is in conflict with research evidence we have to make a choice. Sometimes the research turns out to be wrong and we are right to hold on to our intuitions; but the history of science is full of examples of conflicts between intuition and evidence, and mostly the evidence wins. As the evidence comes to be accepted, our intuitions and understandings change and become more sophisticated in order to accommodate it. This process of challenging and reconstructing our understandings or schemas in the light of new evidence or experience is also part of many theories of learning. Part of the challenge for me is to understand why these ‘ineffective’ approaches are so strongly believed to benefit learning by many of those whose experience is rooted in the classroom. The best answer I have come up with is that those strategies do indeed have benefits, but for outcomes that we mistake for learning rather than for real learning. In other words, the teachers who believe strongly and unshakably that reducing class size from 30 to 15, or adding a teaching assistant into a mainstream classroom, or setting learners into ability groups will make a big difference to learning are often justifying this belief by drawing on an understanding of ‘learning’ that is at odds with the one being measured in research studies. For example, in discussing why they believe smaller classes are much better, a teacher will often say, ‘You can give pupils more individual attention.’ My question is then, ‘Does more individual teacher attention mean more learning? What makes you think that?’ In fact, much of the learning that happens in classrooms can be unexpectedly unrelated to what teachers intend, assume or do (Nuthall, 2005, 2007). But somehow the idea that ‘I have taught it’ becomes a proxy for ‘they have learned it’, without a need for any independent check on what (if anything) has actually been learned. Poor Proxies for Learning (Easily observed, but not really about learning):
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Students are busy: lots of work is done (especially written work) Students are engaged, interested, motivated Students are getting attention: feedback, explanations Classroom is ordered, calm, under control Curriculum has been ‘covered’ (ie. presented to students in some form) (At least some) students have provided correct answers (whether or not they really understood them or could reproduce them independently Figure 1: Poor Proxies for Learning
10
The Montsaye Approach Doing justice to this kind of argument needs a lot more time and space than is available here. In discussing, thinking and reading about these issues, and in observing classrooms, I have come to believe that it may be common for teaching to be quite unrelated to learning; in many classrooms both things are happening, but each is more or less independent of the other. This can only happen if teaching is not really focussed on learning, and the reason that is possible is that teachers readily accept poor proxies for learning, rather than seeking direct and valid evidence of true learning (which is much harder!). Some of these poor proxies are listed in Figure 1. If it is true that teaching is sometimes not focussed on learning, how can we make them better aligned? One answer is that it may help to clarify exactly what we think learning is and how it happens, so that we can move beyond the proxies. I have come up with a simple formulation: Learning happens when people have to think hard Obviously, this is over-simplistic, vague and not original. But if it helps teachers to ask questions like, ‘Where in this lesson will students have to think hard?’ it may be useful. Some research evidence, along with more anecdotal experience, also suggests that students themselves may not necessarily have real learning at the top of their agenda either. For example, Nuthall (2005) reports a study in which most students “were thinking about how to get finished quickly or how to get the answer with the least possible effort”. If given the choice between copying out a set of correct answers, with no effort, but no understanding of how to get them, and having to think hard to derive their own answers, check them, correct them and try to develop their own understanding of the underlying logic behind them, how many students would freely choose the latter? And yet, by choosing the former, they are effectively saying, ‘I am not interested in learning.’ This leads me to my first recommendation: Get teaching really focussed on learning The hard question here is: How? Which brings me to my second strategy. 2. Invest in effective professional development There seems to be a lot of interest in teachers’ continuing professional development (CPD) at the moment, and a lot of this argument has been well made by others (eg Teacher Development Trust, 2013). We know that teaching quality is one of the main determinants of learning (Hattie, 2003; Rivkin et al, 2005; Kane et al, 2013). We also know that measures of teachers’ performance typically improve during the first few years of their careers, and then plateau after 3-5 years (Rockoff, 2004; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009). We do not know a lot about the impact of teachers’ CPD on students’ learning outcomes, but what we do know suggests two important things: that the right kinds of CPD can produce big benefits for learners, and that most of the CPD undertaken by teachers is not of this kind (Joyce and Showers, 2002; Yoon et al 2007; . Wei et al, 2009; Cordingley and Bell, 2012). This evidence is summarised in Figure 2. As Wiliam (2007) has written, Knowing that is different from knowing how. But in the model of learning that dominates teacher professional development (as well as most formal education), we assume that if we teach the knowing that, then the knowing how will follow. We assemble teachers in rooms and bring in experts to explain what needs to change—and then we're disappointed when such events have little or no effect on teachers' practice. This professional development model assumes that what teachers lack is knowledge. For the most part, this is simply not the case. The last 30 years have shown conclusively that you can change 11
The Montsaye Approach teachers' thinking about something without changing what those teachers do in classrooms. What kind of CPD helps learners? It should be ‌ 1.
Intense: at least 15 contact hours, preferably 50
2.
Sustained: over at least two terms
3.
Content focused: on teachers’ knowledge of subject content & how students learn it
4.
Active: opportunities to try it out & discuss
5.
Supported: external feedback and networks to improve and sustain
6.
Evidence based: promotes strategies supported by robust evaluation evidence
Figure 2: What kind of CPD helps learners?
Most of the high-impact strategies from the Toolkit are hard to implement; using them effectively is a skill that must be learned. Ironically, teachers are well-placed to know what kinds of practices are likely to be required for learning hard skills. For example, if we want children to learn place value, persuasive writing, music composition or balancing chemical equations, we might start by explaining what they have to do, but then also demonstrating it, getting them to do it (with a fair amount of structure and support to begin with, then gradually reduced), providing feedback to correct and reinforce, getting them to practise, practise, practise until it is really secure, and all the while assessing their performance, reviewing and intervening as necessary. By contrast, if we want teachers to learn hard things like using formative assessment, assertive discipline or how to teach algebra, we often don’t get beyond just explaining what they have to do. For a profession that is so dedicated to learning for others, teachers seem to take little care over their own learning. For many teachers, the kind of CPD described in Figure 2 is rarely offered or experienced. Even if such training were offered, many school leaders would have serious concerns about allowing their teachers to spend so much time out of the classroom, and their CPD budgets would probably not allow it anyway. Moving to a model where CPD like this is routine would require some big culture shifts: a more general recognition that teaching well is hard and needs to be learned; an expectation that teacher CPD should lead to benefits for learners; and an emphasis on evaluating the impact of CPD on learner outcomes. This change might also require additional investment in CPD; but, on the other hand, it might not. For example, a realistic choice for a school for spending its Pupil Premium could be between (a) reducing classes from 30 to 24 or (b) teaching classes of 30 for four days a week and using the fifth day for CPD. My second recommendation is therefore: Invest in effective professional development 3. Evaluate teaching quality If we are to capitalise on the benefits of professional development, then we need both to be able to target that development at areas of need and to be able to evaluate its impact. Unless we have sophisticated systems in place for evaluating teaching quality, both are hard to do.
12
The Montsaye Approach I have already argued that existing approaches to identifying effective schools are problematic; the same arguments apply to attempts to identify effective teachers. Despite that, there has been a growth of interest recently in trying to do this, mostly from the US, mostly based on students’ annual gains (on tests of variable quality) using econometric analyses, much of it driven by the desire to create reward structures for effective teachers or ‘deselect’ the ineffective (eg Hanushek, 2011). Underlying this work is an emerging consensus that it is not largely schools that make a difference to learning, but teachers – a finding which has been evident from the early days of CEM monitoring systems (Coe and Fitz-Gibbon, 1998). Some of the claims being made by economists are astonishing. For example, Hanushek (2011) uses estimates of the impact that an effective teacher has on the lifetime earnings of their students as a measure of their value. By this metric the difference between a slightly above average teacher (60 th percentile) and an average teacher (50th percentile) for a class of 30 is worth $160k for each class they teach for one year. For a really effective teacher (90th percentile) the difference is more than $800k per class. This gives a whole new meaning to the term ‘value-added’. All the concerns about measuring ‘effectiveness’ that I have already voiced are still relevant. But that does not mean that a constructive evaluation (including self-evaluation) of teaching quality should not be informed by – among other things – evidence from test score gains. The Gates Foundation’s Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project has recently made important progress in demonstrating the benefits of using multiple measures of effectiveness (see http://www.metproject.org/reports.php). Their three main sources of evidence (test score gains, student ratings and classroom observation) are shown, if done well, to contribute to a single construct of effectiveness, but also to complement each other with each providing a unique contribution. This project has also significantly advanced our understandings of the legitimacy of interpreting ‘value-added’ as a causal teacher effect, through the use of random allocation (Kane et al, 2013), and of the requirements and limitations of classroom observation (Ho and Kane, 2013). My third recommendation is: Use multiple sources of validated evidence to support diagnostic and constructive evaluation of teacher quality. 4. Evaluate impact of changes My final recommendation is related to the previous one in that it is also focused on evaluation, but this one relates to evaluating the impact of interventions. In some ways this is the most important of all four. Without evaluation, the previous three are just yet more plausible suggestions, with much the same provenance as all the other changes that I claim have not worked. The message of this talk is not ‘What we have done so far has not worked, so let’s try some different things,’ but ‘What we have done so far has not worked, so let’s try some different things and this time evaluate properly whether they work or not.’ Many educators are lovers of novelty; it is a great strength and a weakness. We invest huge effort and cost in implementing new ideas, and it is likely that some of them bring genuine improvement. However, it is also likely that some – perhaps just as many – lead to deterioration Many, of course, make no real difference at all. And in most cases we will not know which are which. This should not depress us; it simply tells us that we cannot judge whether something works without evaluating it properly. We often think we can, but the evidence shows we are wrong. There are some important recent national developments that are really encouraging here. The work of the Educational Endowment Foundation has really raised the priority and level of thinking about high-quality evaluation in education across England. Following the Goldacre review, large-scale randomised controlled 13
The Montsaye Approach trials have been launched by the Department for Education and the National College for Teaching and Leadership. Evaluation is not simple to do, so just saying ‘we should evaluate’ is not the same as building the capacity and culture required to make it happen. We must not underestimate the challenge of doing this, and must plan and resource that development carefully. One contribution to this is the Educational Endowment Foundation’s DIY Evaluation Guide (Coe et al, 2013), designed to support teachers in evaluating their own small-scale changes. My fourth and final recommendation is: Whenever we make a change we must try to evaluate its impact as robustly as we can. Conclusions I have claimed that educational standards in England have not risen, attempts to improve education have largely failed and even when we think we can pick out the best schools, we “know so many things that just ain't so”. Actually it doesn’t really matter whether or not you accept this analysis; either way we should look for the best strategies to bring real improvement. Even if hope is not rational or evidence-based, we need to hold on to it. Education is far too important to give up on. I have made four suggestions. The first three are just suggestions; I’ll be happy to concede them if others have better suggestions. But the fourth is non-negotiable: the fourth is the one that distinguishes what I am recommending from what we have done before. Education has existed in a pre-scientific world, where good measurement of anything important is rare and evaluation is done badly or not at all. It is time we established a more scientific approach.
14
The Montsaye Approach
THE MONTSAYE APPROACH: GREAT TEACHING AND LEARNING
15
The Montsaye Approach GREAT TEACHING AND LEARNING IDEAS Karolyn Claypole, Peter Tomkins, Laura Wickens, James Wiggins, Kay Thomas, Jon Radborne Year 11 Food and Nutrition - Quick on the Draw Revision Following coverage of a topic create 30 questions of varying difficult to test the student’s knowledge. Organise the students into mixed ability teams and place the pile of 30 questions for their group (mixed up so that they are not in the same order) on the teacher’s desk. One student has to collect a question from their pile and discuss this with the group. The student who volunteers the answer writes this underneath the question and brings it to the teacher to check. If it is correct, they take another question and continue. If the answer is wrong, they can place it back on the pile, take another and come back to it later. Alternatively, they have to go back to the group and try again. Continue until a group completes all of the questions. Providing chocolate for the winning group adds to the competitive element and enjoyment. Karolyn Claypole
Year 11 English Revision Lesson – Of Mice and Men This was a group who had been withdrawn from core PE for additional revision for English Literature GCSE. The group had come from different English groups and had neither worked together before nor worked with me before. I had been asked to revise Of Mice and Men with them and wanted to make sure that whatever we did had some positive impact on their preparation for the exam. So I fell back on a tried and tested activity. I made some cards with the names of the main characters on and distributed them to ten students in the class and then asked them to stand in a continuum at the front of the class from the most to least isolated character. They had to negotiate their position in the continuum and then agree on an order. I then asked the rest of the class whether anyone was in the wrong place. Individuals had to justify their ideas by using evidence from the text. This led to a wide ranging class discussion which considered alternatives and evidence. They then reordered themselves using different ideas and repeated the process. Peter Tomkins
Year 13 Psychology - Revision lesson Spend a few minutes revising a particular topic. Play Articulate! Teacher has a list of key words and concepts on a powerpoint presentation – one per slide. For the first half of the game, one student comes up to the front – looks at the powerpoint on the laptop and tries to describe that word/concept to the rest of the class without saying any of the words within the phrase. The rest of the class are in competition with each other to be the first to correctly guess the term. Scores on the board. The second half of the game changes round. Now, each student comes up to the board and sits with their back to the board. The key concept/word is displayed behind them so they cannot see it. The rest of the 16
The Montsaye Approach class then have to shout out descriptions of the term to allow the student at the front to correctly guess it. Again, students take it in turns to try and guess. Marks go to the students who can correctly guess. This allows students to engage with some difficult concepts and allows all students to contribute. Laura Wickens
Year 9 History GCSE American West – Donner Murder Mystery Pupils entered to murder mystery music and on the table was a sheet with 3 clues. They had 5 minutes to come up with a range of ideas answering “What has happened?”, then they were to pick which idea was most likely to be correct and why. We then discussed our ideas, which was very entertaining. The next two sequences of the lesson gave the pupils more clues and info through vid clips, images and text. Eventually they recorded their conclusions using the 5 W’s. At this point we read the actual events and evaluated how close our conclusions were. Finally we recorded the correct information using the 5 W’s and answered the LO – “What was it like to travel west for early settlers?”
5 minutes off you go! James Wiggins
Year 11 History GCSE Medicine and Treatment– Preventing and curing disease 1.
An image of a man (Robert Koch) on a horse stamping on a snake (TB) waving a microscope (tool of investigation).
Purpose: a) analysing a source for inference; b) aiming for explanation and avoiding description. 2a)
In pairs read a page of the textbook and agree on 15 ideas (or phrases) only as key to the topic. (This lesson comes in the middle of a topic so they have enough knowledge to do some selection.)
2b)
Draw a glass beaker with a funnel sitting on top of it, then go around the class asking for their agreed phrases and writing them on the board until the beaker and funnel overflow.
2c)
Ask the class which phrases can be erased and taken out of the beaker without losing meaning and focus
17
The Montsaye Approach 2d)
As a pair fill in a grid that discusses the factors that helped Koch make his breakthrough (scientific method/technology/ research teams/existing knowledge). As a class discuss which two factors were the most important.
Purpose: a) selecting appropriate information for a specific question; b) distilling information; c) bringing in previous knowledge to explain "why then". 3a)
Read two boxes in a text book about the further development of ideas about disease prevention (Ant-toxins and Magic Bullets).
3b)
Complete a writing frame on the contribution of Koch to curing diseases. (Two paragraphs: one about his contribution; the other about the inspiration he gave to scientists who came after.)
Purpose: a) developing analytical thinking; b) focussed and analytical writing. 4.
Design 4 top trumps to show the relative importance of microscopes, research teams, existing knowledge and scientific methods to developing cures for diseases.
Kay Thomas
Year 9 ICT - Python Programming A year 9 mixed ability option group working towards the end of the Foundation Course before beginning the GCSE in year 10 Some prior exposure to programming via Scratch in year 8 and Hour of Code Exercises (that build confidence and expose students to Python’s dot syntax.) The first two lessons were an introduction where all students followed a number of teacher led coding activities supported by a PowerPoint and simple work sheets. They were introduced to some basic concepts such as variable types, inputs, outputs and (very) simple processes. Feedback allowed me to select a number of “Assistant Bosses - EASE”, based on their performance. And so the lesson began… Starter Activity:
Quick recap asking students to write a program that draws a square in a graphics window. Students support each other as needed. Teacher develops a model answer based on instructions from students (Impero used to view students’ code and share).
Task 1:
Shapes worksheet – builds on the principle in the starter activity but covers three more regular shapes. Students worked through the worksheet. Assistant Bosses are detailed to pick up students who are struggling and to help them. I used Impero to spot students who had stalled. The “twist” is
18
The Montsaye Approach
help from the Bosses comes at a price, the helped student has to show what they have learned to another student. PowerPoint was then used to show model answers and students compared their code. Students updated their diaries.
Task 2:
While students were working on Task 1, I used Impero to send an electronic copy of the second work sheet to them. The work sheet was made up of a number of programming tasks; each task came in three levels, labelled Easy, Medium and Hard. Students choose an appropriate level based on their performance in Task 1. Students could gain help from “partner programming”, asking for help from the teacher or TA. Students were encouraged to push towards the Hard level tasks and record their progress in the grid at the top of the worksheet.
Short Plenary:
As the activity was designed to run over two lessons with teacher input as new concepts are needed, the plenary was short. Students were invited to show which tasks they had done by use of a show of hands Students were encouraged to attempt more difficult tasks next lesson
Jon Radbourne
19
The Montsaye Approach ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING IN MATHS Louisa Copping and Chris Raine In order to personalise learning to students’ individual needs we assess each student’s prior knowledge at the start of topics using a short assessment. Questions are directly linked to the learning objectives to make it easy for students to traffic light objectives on a sheet in their books. Student then work on the red and amber objectives during their lessons. The student objective sheet includes references to text books, revision guides and other resources to support their learning. This way we are able to encourage students to be more independent. During interim topic marking the teacher will be able to check traffic lights and move students on as necessary by setting targets. At the end of the topic students are re-assessed and traffic light the objectives a second time. This enables our students to demonstrate the progress they have made. Many students find the system motivational. Once resources are set up and in place it is not overly time consuming. This has led to more consistency in the department and has improved the quality of written feedback. Table 1 is handed out to pupils at the start of a topic. They use it to work out what areas they need to start on and resources to use. The teacher uses it to inform their planning of a topic, responding to the needs of the pupils.
Table 1 Table 2 is used as a feedback sheet about half way through the topic and was printed on stickers for ease of use. The teacher would mark the work highlighting areas of strength and weakness and provide the pupils with a task for next lesson which will either extend or consolidate their learning.
20
The Montsaye Approach Student Feedback Topic Objectives
H8 Percentages 1 grade
Understand that a percentage is a fraction in hundredths Convert between fractions, decimals and percentages Write one number as a percentage of another number Calculate the percentage of a given amount Find a percentage increase/decrease of an amount Calculate simple interest Next lesson
R A G
E D D/C D C C
Table 2 Overleaf is an example of an assessment used. The assessment is used during the topic. It can help pupils gauge their understanding at the start of a topic as well as being used at the end to monitor their progress.
21
The Montsaye Approach GCSE Higher
Unit 8: Percentages 1 AfL Sheet
Year 9 Term 3
Understand that a percentage is a fraction in hundredths – Grade E Write a percentage as a decimal; or as a fraction in its simplest terms – Grade D Calculate the percentage (or fraction) of a given amount – Grade D
1.
In a survey, some families were asked to name their favourite supermarket. Some of the results are shown in the diagram. Favourite Supermarkets for families TRESCO 20%
SALISBURY 18%
BROADWAY 9%
MONTROSE 7%
GATESHEAD 5%
(a) Write as a fraction the percentage whose favourite supermarket was Montrose. (b) Write as a decimal the percentage whose favourite supermarket was Salisbury. 200 families took part in the survey. (c) Work out the number of families whose favourite supermarket was Tresco.
Calculate a percentage of an amount – Grade D
2.
There are 800 students at Prestfield School. 45% of these 800 students are girls. (a) Work out 45% of 800
Write one number as a percentage of another number – Grade D
There are 176 students in Year 10. (b) Write 176 out of 800 as a percentage. Find a percentage increase/decrease of an amount – Grade C
3.
William’s salary is £24 000 His salary increases by 4%. Work out William’s new salary.
Calculate problems involving simple interest – Grade C
4.
Find the simple interest on £3500 invested for 3 years at 4% per year.
22
The Montsaye Approach A LEARNING CYCLE Laura Green This four-stage learning cycle promotes successful and independent learning for all students. It is an adaptable resource to guide students on their learning journey from the start of a topic to its completion or to provide structure for individual lessons. The cycle may cover an activity in a lesson, a complete lesson, a series of lessons, a project or an entire course. The four stage cycle can be used in many ways including:
presented as a visual resource within the classroom to map out the learning process; as a working document; a revision tool; a contents page or a menu.
When planning lessons or schemes of work, this model helps to map out the learning that is going to take place. It could be used as a guide for teachers: a way of ensuring variety, challenge and engagement in the classroom. This learning model aims to promote consistency across the curriculum, offering a uniform structure for learning. A structure that students will recognise in every lesson, which will support and enhance their learning experience at Montsaye.
23
The Montsaye Approach BECOMING INFLUENTIAL WITH TROUBLED STUDENTS IN SCHOOLS: SURPRISINGLY EFFECTIVE THERAPEUTIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUES Lise Griffiths This is the second part of a three part series exploring ways of communicating with students. Teenagers know everything don’t they? Of course; you’re a nag. How do you know what you’re talking about? How do you know how they feel? In all honesty you don’t, and you simply can’t control what they do or how they think. However you can learn skills to understand their version of the world and have a positive influence over it.
Changing Patterns of Negative Behaviour Distraction from Negative Stimuli The attention that people pay to distressing or uncomfortable stimuli is often extremely unhelpful. It is often the attention which causes the problem, not the stimulus itself. Without attention, the stimulus wouldn’t be perceived. For example: ‘I hate noise in the classroom, everyone is so loud.’ After establishing what problem this noise causes for the student, and no solution to remove it is possible, it is ideal for the student not to notice it any longer due to their conscious attention being on some other stimulus. This could be done by asking them to try and find out what sound their pen makes on the paper as they write. This is a good example of the need for a highly developed rapport and well-built trust in order for the student to take on what they are being asked to do without too much questioning or disbelief. Associations for Eliciting Positive Moods and Attitudes Negative patterns of behaviour are preceded by negative thoughts and feelings. If positive thoughts and feelings can be elicited the outcome will usually be different. The key to eliciting this positivity is genuine positive memories with the emotion or attitude that the student needs to experience, and associating these memories to a stimulus that can be available whenever the student needs it. Eventually the idea is for the stimulus to be directly and automatically associated with the feeling of positivity without the actual memories, and to be able to elicit it – example below: 1. Negative thoughts and feelings: Student feels unimportant and unnoticed, and has desire for attention 2. Negative behaviour: Student ‘misbehaves’ and becomes disruptive to get reactions from others (e.g. throwing objects, calling out) 3. Positive thoughts and feelings needed: Student feeling important and noticed with good selfperception 4. An associated stimulus to pair with the positive memory is identified. Sensory-specific stimuli are particularly ideal (e.g. doodling a specific pattern for ‘visual processors’ or holding a certain tactile object for ‘kinaesthetic processors’ for example).
24
The Montsaye Approach 5. Whilst experiencing the associated stimulus the student describes positive memories of feeling important and noticed. Sensory-specific questions are ideal (e.g. ‘what did that feel like?’ or ‘what did that look like?’) 6. This takes place on a number of occasions and when it is felt that the student can elicit these specific positive feelings by experiencing the stimulus alone, instruct them to do this in lesson or whenever it is needed. The idea is for the positive thoughts and feelings to be unconsciously evoked, and the student to be left with an overall feeling of satisfaction therefore not experiencing the need for attention from others.
Gaining More Detail Individualised Meanings A great (and unnecessary) amount of trouble can ensue from the difference between peoples’ individual meanings of words and phrases in communicating with each other. The linguistic term for this difference is complex equivalents. ‘My mum says she’s more important than me’. In this example the key question is what the student and her mother both understand by the word ‘important.’ With the affronted nature by which the student complained of her mother’s statement, it can be assumed that she has taken the meaning to be something along the lines of ‘prioritised more highly’ or even ‘cared more about,’ whereas her mother could have meant ‘more in charge’ or ‘expected to be more responsible.’ Further clarification of a) the event context; and b) the student’s perception is needed without suggestion. For example a) ‘what do you think made her want to say that?’ and b) ‘how are “important” people treated compared to not so “important” people? Following this clarification the questioning adult will be far more equipped with detailed information about the student’s own perception. It can also be enlightening for the student to be encouraged to think of a variety of other meanings. It is also important for the student to identify what she thinks her mother may have meant by this word, then what assumptions there are that influence this. For example: ‘She always puts herself first’ ‘What does she do to put herself first?’ Getting Down to Specifics Vague, all-encompassing sentences like ‘no one cares about me’ indicate an over-generalisation and this student may be unwilling to be specific because it means taking responsibility or facing difficult or uncomfortable perceptions. Below are some examples of homing-in on the specifics, with possible difficult perceptions in parentheses: ‘People are so annoying’ ‘Who is annoying you, and what about them is annoying? (Student may feel very disliked) ‘Teachers just think I’m thick’ ‘Which teachers and what do they do or say?’ (Student may actually feel thick).
25
The Montsaye Approach To encourage the student to take responsibility and face their difficult feelings, asking specific questions is far more helpful than simply asking ‘why?’ (which is unhelpfully vague in most situations). Nouns into Verbs – Who is Actually Doing What? The way people talk about experiences can somewhat remove their own direct involvement. E.g. using vague nouns like ‘relationships,’ friendships,’ ‘love,’ and ‘worry.’ If these are turned into actions which they can actually view themselves and others around them as central to, they will perceive these concepts as something they take part in, and feel they have more choices about how to behave. ‘Her friendship is not good enough’ ‘How would she befriend you ideally?’ Expectations and Individual Definitions A lot of information can be gained about people’s subjective definitions and what they personally expect of the world around them. This in turn is helpful for opening up new perspectives for them and new choices of how to think and behave: ‘I wish she would appreciate my friendship more’ ‘What could she do to show you that?’ ‘Maybe spend more time with me in school and sit with me in lesson?’ It is likely that that to this student, friendship appreciation = loyalty/spending time. They could now be asked what other loyal things this friend does, or how else they spend time with the student to challenge their perspective. ‘Sir’s lessons are rubbish’ ‘What would make them more exciting?’ ‘If we could do what we want’ It is likely that to this student ‘rubbish’ lessons = structure/authority. They could now be asked what happens if there is structure, or ask them how they felt about a time when there was structure that we know was helpful to them. Deep Structure vs Surface Structure When listening to someone’s natural speech you are only hearing their perception of their experience at the time. This ‘surface structure’ of their language is limited by many personal errors, for example; assumptions, exaggeration, and the constraints on perception such as what key information the person has been unable to perceive. The ‘deep structure’ is a more complete linguistic representation of a person’s version of the world and can only be available to another person through careful questioning and communication. Using the discussed techniques you can learn a great deal about the student’s individual versions of what they experience.
26
The Montsaye Approach
THE MONTSAYE APPROACH: CHALLENGING UNDERACHIEVEMENT
27
The Montsaye Approach WORKING CLASS UNDERACHIEVEMENT - THE SOCIOLOGY Makayla Askew, Rosie Griffiths and Lydia Ravenscroft The following article has been written by three Year 12 Sociology students in it they examine some of the research and ideas around working class underachievement.
Cultural Capital This idea was originally coined by a French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, who claims that each social class possesses its own cultural framework which he calls a habitus. The dominant class has the power to use their habitus within state institutions such as the education system, therefore what society believes to be educational knowledge is actually the knowledge of the dominant social class. The middle class has access to the culture of the dominant class therefore they possess ‘cultural capital’ which better equips them for achievement. Cultural capital refers to the knowledge, attitudes, values, language, tastes and abilities the middle class transmit to their children. The working class who have had ‘inadequate’ socialisation are less adapted to the culture of the school (rather than possessing cultural capital they suffer from a cultural deficit). This begins to explain their underachievement as it suggests that aspects of education such as the language of exams and textbooks, the syllabus topics and the skills required mirror those taught and used by middle class families rather than by working families. Bourdieu further develops this idea by identifying two other types of capital lacking in the lower classes: economic and social. He claims that the middle class can convert these aspects into one another. For example they can convert their economic capital into cultural capital by paying to send their children to private schools where they will receive a higher level of education. Social capital or “who you know” can be used to advance a child by, for instance, arranging an internship at a friend’s prestigious company. For Bourdieu middle class advantage is found throughout the institutions of society. Alice Sullivan carried out research in the UK based on Bourdieu’s theories and, using a series of questionnaires among 465 pupils preparing to take their GCSEs, classified their social class dependent on their parents’ occupations. She then measured their cultural capital by conducting research on the types of TV programmes they watched, the genre of books they read, the style of music they listened to and their leisure pursuits such as art galleries, concerts or theatres. Finally they were tested on their level of vocabulary and the information they knew about cultural figures. From these results she concluded that the pupils from middle class backgrounds typically had a higher level of knowledge, an extended vocabulary and watched documentaries/cultural programmes and so achieved better results. Sullivan claimed that it was incorrect to include cultural events and the involvement in music as part of ‘cultural capital’ as it appeared to exert no influence on the pupils’ results. In summary, Sullivan’s research suggests evidence of Bourdieu’s theory in the UK.
Marketisation In 1988 the Education Reform Act saw the introduction of the education market where schools had to compete for pupils. This marketisation of education brought exam league tables (which rank schools in order of their exam performance), the funding formula (which gives school funding per student) and most importantly, competition. The theory behind this education policy was to drive up educational standards across the whole system, but particularly at secondary level. However, it is arguable that the marketisation of education simply favoured the middle class whilst disregarding the working class. The school practice most affected by the new Conservative policies was the selection process. The need to select the most academic students became essential in order to increase performance in the league tables. As a result, 28
The Montsaye Approach schools began what Will Bartlett describes as cream skimming and silt-shifting. Cream skimming is where schools select the higher ability pupils who gain the best results whilst silt-shifting is off-loading pupils with learning difficulties or pupils who are deemed as less likely to achieve. Stereotypes deemed pupils from working class backgrounds as less able so they had their access to “better” schools restricted. Therefore, their achievement worsened by being assigned to schools which lacked adequate facilities whilst middle class achievement improved by being allocated to the best schools. Similarly, Sharon Gerwirtz observes how cultural capital works alongside the marketisation of education in order to benefit the middle class and disadvantage the working class. Using the ideas of Bourdieu, she claims that middle class parents possess economic and cultural capital in order to select the best performing secondary schools. In total she identifies three types of parents which she calls privileged skilled choosers (professional middle class parents), disconnected local choosers (working class parents) and semi-skilled chooser (working class parents who are ambitious for their children). Gerwirtz claims that both the disconnected local and semi-skilled choosers lack both economic and cultural capital to help them effectively pick the higher performing schools. For example, culturally they lack knowledge about how to fill an application form in their child’s favour and are less aware of the available choices. Economically they are unable to pay for transport to more academic schools. Gillborn and Youdell have their own interpretation of the effects of marketisation on working class students. They conducted their primary research in two London secondary schools, Taylor Comprehensive and Clough Grant Maintained. Their results found that the introduction of exam league tables prompted schools to adopt an ‘A-to-C economy’. This is where schools unfairly distribute their time to students who they believe are more likely to achieve, strengthening their position in the league table and so in the public eye. Gillborn and Youdell identify this process as an ‘educational triage’ by which schools group students into ‘those who will pass anyway’, ‘those with potential’ and ‘hopeless cases’. Unfortunately those with a working class background are more likely to be perceived as a ‘hopeless case’ meaning they are denied the time, effort and resources required to be successful. It is obvious that this process is fuelled by unfair stereotyping as well as the marketisation polices.
Cultural Deprivation Cultural deprivation theorists such as Barry Sugarman and J.W.B Douglas suggest that adequate primary socialisation is key for educational success through the acquisition of basic values, attitudes and skills. According to many of these theorists many working class families fail to socialise their children effectively thus leading to them becoming ‘culturally deprived’ as they lack the cultural “equipment” which is essential for their success; therefore this social class as a whole is held back and inevitably underachieve. A key area of cultural deprivation is intellectual development which include thinking and reasoning skills; these are prime examples of the skills essential for educational success. The lack of these skills may because many working class homes lack activities which stimulate a child’s development, for example the use of educational toys, resulting in insufficient development of the skills required to be successful. In addition to this J.W.B Douglas’ research into this area showed that working class pupils scored lower on ability tests than middle class pupils, which he suggests is due to middle class children receiving greater attention during primary socialisation which holds back the intellectual development of working class pupils. Middle class parents are more likely to encourage their children to do well, giving them an incentive to achieve. Douglas therefore attaches significance to the child’s early years where parental encouragement and high aspirations are essential to prevent working class pupils underachieving.
Language and Speech Patterns Language and speech patterns are important when considering cultural deprivation as a reason for the underachievement of working class pupils. The English sociologist Basil Bernstein focuses his work on the 29
The Montsaye Approach differences in speech between the classes which he then relates to the differences in educational achievement. Bernstein’s work produced a theory of two speech patterns: the ‘restricted code’ and ‘elaborated code’. The restricted code is grammatically simple containing unfinished sentences. An individual using this type of speech is not necessarily of low intelligence as the name may suggest. The use of such shorthand speech stems from the extreme familiarity between the individual and their conversing partner leading to complete understanding of each other no matter how simplistic the language used is, for example between married couples. However Bernstein does argue that the working class are limited to the use of the restricted code due to cultural deprivation and so inevitably holds them back and denies them academic success as they cannot use textbooks to their advantage as they do not have the knowledge for a full understanding of such complex scripts in their exams. In contrast there is the elaborated code which allows for the explicit description of meanings to a high level. The meanings are universal. The use of elaborated code, allowing such a wide understanding, gives the upper hand to those who use it; Bernstein claims the middle class as a majority users of an elaborated code. This helps to explain why the working class consistently underachieve in comparison to the middle class.
Attitudes Furthermore, when examining cultural deprivation to explain working class underachievement Barry Sugarman describes the importance of different attitudes and orientations. The difference between the two classes attitudes are, in Sugarman’s view, a factor which inevitably leads to the working class consistently underachieving academically. Barry Sugarman characterises working class attitudes as fatalism, the acceptance of the current situation rather than making an effort to improve it. In terms of achievement this fatalistic behaviour will prevent lower-class students striving to achieve their best in the classroom. Immediate gratification and present-time orientation is also prominent in their attitude; these are similar concepts based on a ‘live for the moment’ approach, making the most out of current pleasures rather than planning for the future. In terms of education working class students do not sacrifice their free time to ensure future examination success, instead choosing time with friends over time for revision. The final part of Sugarman’s orientations is collectivism; this means putting loyalty to a group over an individual’s own achievement leading to the individual’s failure. Overall the middle class, who do not possess these behaviours, have the upper hand in terms of success as they are more self-focussed and their drive to achieve is fulfilled. Sugarman describes comparable middle class attitudes as deterministic, deferred gratification, future-time orientation and individualism.
Subcultures When considering why working class students consistently underachieve academically it is important to look at the concept of ‘subcultures’; when more directly linked to education ‘pupil subcultures’. These are created when pupils with similar values and behavioural tendencies join together. Colin Lacey’s research on the effects of subcultures provides evidence of the differences in academic achievement between the classes. Pupils who are placed in higher sets/streams in school, usually middle class pupils, stick to the rules and act in an approved manner created from their status in wider society thus ensuring their academic success – this can be defined as a ‘pro school subculture’. In contrast to this Lacey describes an ‘anti-school subculture’ which is the opposite of a pro-school subculture. Those usually placed in lower sets in school are the working class who lack status and may feel especially inferior due to their position in this set. This leads to the development of the anti-school subculture. Members of this subculture may unite in an attempt to increase their status by acting against the education system; examples of how they may do this include insolence, truanting or smoking. Whilst acting in such a way the pupils who are a part of this negative subculture are not focusing on their work and therefore it is inevitable they will underachieve. An American sociologist, Herbert Hyman, used a wide range of data to explain the difference between the middle and working class suggesting that, due to their vastly different norms and values, they are each a 30
The Montsaye Approach different subculture in themselves. Hyman suggested that members of the working class do not place the same value on education as the middle class, thus not seeing the importance of success and not striving to achieve. In addition to this the working class believe they have less opportunity for personal advancement due to their ‘inferior position’, consequently pupils may not see the point in trying hard academically.
Labelling Labelling students within the classroom could contribute significantly to working class underachievement. To label a person is to give them a perceived definition or meaning of how you or others see them. Applying this to education could include labelling a student as a ‘trouble maker’ or someone who consistently excels as ‘clever.’ It is argued that working-class pupils will be disproportionately labelled negatively, whilst middle-class students will be labelled more positively. Sociologists suggest that the most significant effect of labelling is the self-fulfilling prophecy. This means that some people will begin to adopt the label and start to display this in their behaviour. Thus the working class student in the bottom set (or a number of bottom sets) will gradually develop an understanding of their lack of ability and act accordingly. It has been suggested that children as young as four or five years old can be labelled by their teachers. Recent large scale research by University College London based on 5,000 seven-year-olds at English state schools showed that on average pupils from higher income families had a 48% chance of being labelled as "above average" in reading, compared to 37% of those from lower income backgrounds. The study found that in maths wealthier children had a 42% chance of being judged as able whilst on poorer pupils had only a 32% chance. Most evidence suggests that labelling is not a deliberate act but more about the processes that operate in schools – the hidden curriculum. This includes how children are organised into teaching groups, the curriculum students are given access to, tiered examination papers (and thus access to knowledge and skills) and the activities we celebrate (academic success).
Material Deprivation It has been argued by some sociologists that material deprivation is the main cause of the underachievement of the working-class. The term ‘material deprivation’ refers to poverty and a lack of material necessities such as adequate housing or income. There is a term now used to explain the effects that poverty has on educational attainment, the poverty penalty. This term simply means that children will pay the price for the lack of resources they have and it is suggested that the working-class fit better into this category than anyone else. It has been proven statistically that there is a strong correlation between poverty and educational underachievement. For instance, in 2006, only 33% of children receiving free school meals produced five or more GCSEs at A*-C and nearly 90% of ‘failing’ schools are located in deprived areas. Michael Noble conducted an investigation into the ‘barriers to learning’ that poverty creates for a pupil. These barriers include the inability to afford school uniforms, school trips, transport, classroom materials and school textbooks. Noble also mentions that another barrier is that a low income reduces the likelihood of a computer with internet access at home, a desk, educational toys, books and a space in which to do homework. One key aspect of material deprivation is housing. Poor living accommodation has been shown to negatively affect a child’s educational achievement. An example of this could be overcrowding. This has the potential to directly affect a pupil’s achievement as it would mean there would be no room for educational activities and nowhere for a child to complete their homework.
31
The Montsaye Approach Marilyn Howard conducted a study into how material deprivation links to a child’s diet and health and how this ultimately affects their achievement. Howard notes that people from poorer backgrounds have a less balanced diet and lower nutritional intake. This poor nutrition can affect a person’s health and this can then inevitably lead to illness and time away from school. This time away from education is yet another contributory factor towards working class children underachievement.
32
The Montsaye Approach POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO WHITE WORKING CLASS UNDER ACHIEVEMENT (TAKEN FROM MY PRESENTATION – SEPTEMBER 2014) Martin Jones Ofsted (2008) - successful strategies for improving the achievement of white boys from low income backgrounds: developing organisation skills instilling the importance of perseverance rigorous monitoring of progress and challenging targets tailored, flexible intervention programmes a curriculum that is tightly structured around individual needs creative and flexible strategies to engage parents and carers strong partnership with a wide range of agencies support Ofsted (2013) – characteristics of schools successful with white working class pupils
took account of personal challenges that children from low-income families often face, BUT did not accept that personal problems inevitably led to underachievement
were relentless in helping children to develop the resilience to deal with and overcome the difficulties that they faced
provided what headteachers described as ‘tough love’
supported the emotional well-being of the children BUT ensured that pupils were reintegrated quickly into lessons and back on track in their learning
supported the emotional well-being of the children BUT ensured that pupils were reintegrated quickly into lessons and back on track in their learning
had a deep-rooted commitment to the school and community and a keen sense of social justice
identified children in need of additional help quickly
tracked the progress of individual children closely and used information to plan suitable interventions ‘from the outset’
made prompt changes to support programmes when they were not meeting the pupils’ needs
ensured that all staff are responsible for the pupils’ performance
used the curriculum to enrich children’s life experiences
looked for successful ways to work closely with parents
worked well with other agencies
Ideas from guest speakers at the launch of the House of Commons Education Committee report “Underachievement in Education by White Working Class Children” (July 2014): •
Good or better teaching is a given – the key to improvement 33
The Montsaye Approach •
LITERACY and ORACY in any form – another key
•
Good transition arrangements
•
Getting pupils “on side” – give them a voice especially in what and how they are learning
•
Seating plans are “law” – non-negotiable
•
Data tracking – but be clear about how it is being used and by whom. Different constituencies need different data – students, parents/carers, class teachers, middle leaders and SLT
•
Reflective practice – use the research
•
Clear, realistic careers education
•
Harness the alumni but not just the high fliers – successful carpenter/florist etc
•
Deal with parental lack of understanding – empower them (but not necessarily in school – supermarkets, community centres etc)
•
Widen horizons (cultural capital/deficit) – visits, residentials, “experiences”
•
High expectations from all
•
Lots of mathematics and English – link the departments – sit down and talk about the children – who is going to succeed or not?
•
All boy groups
•
Early intervention – use the MCLP to identify, target and work with individuals and groups (children, parents, communities) as early as possible
•
Self esteem – you, we, together – CAN SUCCEED – shaping aspiration
34
The Montsaye Approach NOAM CHOMSKY ON THE DANGERS OF STANDARDISED TESTING The following is a partial transcript of an interview with Noam Chomsky uploaded to Youtube by The Progressive Magazine. “The assessment itself is completely artificial. It’s not ranking teachers in accordance with their ability to help develop children who will reach their potential, explore their creative interests. Those things you’re not testing... it’s a rank that’s mostly meaningless. And the very ranking itself is harmful. It’s turning us into individuals who devote our lives to achieving a rank; not to doing things that are valuable and important.”
“You take what is happening in education. Right now, in recent years, there’s a strong tendency to require assessment of children and teachers so that you have to teach to tests. And the test determines what happens to the child and what happens to the teacher. That’s guaranteed to destroy any meaningful educational process. It means the teacher cannot be creative, imaginative, pay attention to individual students’ needs. The student can’t pursue things, maybe some kid who is interested in something, can’t do it because you got to memorize something for this test tomorrow. And the teacher’s future depends on it, as well as the student. The people sitting in the offices, the bureaucrats designing this, they’re not evil people, but they’re working within a system of ideology and doctrines that turns what they’re doing into something extremely harmful. First of all, you don’t have to assess people all the time… People don’t have to be ranked in terms of some artificial [standards]. The assessment itself is completely artificial. It’s not ranking teachers in accordance with their ability to help develop children who will reach their potential, explore their creative interests. Those things you’re not testing. So you are giving some kind of a rank, but it’s a rank that’s mostly meaningless. And the very ranking itself is harmful. It’s turning us into individuals who devote our lives to achieving a rank. Not into doing things that are valuable and important.
35
The Montsaye Approach It’s highly destructive at the lower grades. This is elementary education, so you are training kids this way. And it’s very harmful. I could see it with my own children. When my own kids were in elementary school, at a good quality suburban school, by the time they were in third grade they were dividing up their kids into dumb and smart. You’re dumb if you’re lower tracked, smart if you’re upper tracked. Think of what that does to the children. It doesn’t matter where they’re tracked, the children take it seriously… If you’re caught up in that it’s just extremely harmful. It has nothing to do with education. The whole idea [of ranking] is harmful in itself. It’s kind of a system of creating something called “economic man.” There’s a concept of economic man, which is in economics literature. Economic man is somebody who rationally calculates how to improve his own status (and status basically means wealth). So you rationally calculate what kinds of choices you should make to increase your wealth, and you don’t pay attention to anything else. Maximize the number of goods you have, because that is what you can measure. If you do that properly, you are a rational person making informed judgments. You can improve your “human capital,” what you can sell on the market. What kind of human being is that? Is that the kind of human being you want to create? All of these mechanisms - testing, assessing, evaluating, measuring - they force people to develop those characteristics… These ideas and concepts have consequences…” More on the idea of “economic man” “In economics, homo economicus, or economic man, is the concept in many economic theories of humans as rational and narrowly self-interested actors who have the ability to make judgments toward their subjectively defined ends. Using these rational assessments, homo economicus attempts to maximise utility as a consumer and economic profit as a producer. This theory stands in contrast to the concept of homo reciprocans, which states that human beings are primarily motivated by the desire to be cooperative and to improve their environment.” ~ Homo economicus (Wikipedia)
36
The Montsaye Approach
THE MONTSAYE APPROACH: WHERE ARE WE NOW?
37
The Montsaye Approach TEACHING AND LEARNING REVIEW - 30 APRIL 2015 A team of observers - including members of the SLT, two headteachers from neighbouring schools, two Teaching and Learning Champions and the School Improvement Partner - visited all teachers on the morning of 30 April to produce a snapshot of pupils’ experience of learning. The three foci for the observations were: differentiation, feedback and engagement and enjoyment. The headlines from the review are detailed below in terms of What Went Well and Even Better If for each of the three key areas and then each area is illustrated by specific examples.
Differentiation WWW
Good use of differentiated questioning observed in several lessons
Written feedback on students’ work gave individual points for improvement which students were aware of. In some lessons there was clear evidence of the use of target time to work on and improve those individual areas.
Pupils given individual verbal feedback during the lesson to help progress understanding/learning
Some lessons where pupils were able to choose their own level of challenge within the task
Some clear links between skills and levels/grades and what skills students need to demonstrate to achieve a particular grade
More opportunities for differentiated challenge within activities
More evidence of challenge for the most able students in some lessons.
More consistent use of other adults in supporting differentiation
EBI
The principles below describe what we were looking to see in lessons.
38
The Montsaye Approach Montsaye’s four principles for differentiation
Knowing each student’s progress is the foundation for differentiation. Differentiation is integral to the teaching process and not an add-on. Feedback and questioning are the key methods of differentiation. Differentiation may involve alternative tasks, scaffolding, and extension tasks. Heads of Department need to set the differentiation policy in their subject area so that it fits within these four principles.
Examples: In an English lesson an able group work collectively on ideas for an A* response – many contributed, but many did not. A very good idea, but it needed a greater sense of pace and focus to be really effective. In a Year 11 lesson students are well drilled in exam practice and clear about what they need to do to improve and how they need to do it. In another lesson the class discuss and then listen to the teacher read: they could have been given a purpose for their listening. Elsewhere there was good group work for collaboration and clear challenge was seen. In maths some excellent differentiation was observed with students completing a variety of tasks to reinforce their knowledge of the topic. In another lesson the teacher gave every student verbal feedback about individual needs and areas for development during the 15 minute observation. However elsewhere a student attempted to help another, but was refocused on their own work so the opportunity for collaboration was missed. Similarly opportunities were lost to involve more students through teacher questioning. In one class there was clear evidence of challenge in the teacher’s language: ‘Ready for a challenge?’ In another lesson students demonstrated their understanding of the topic at the start, but still did the planned activity regardless. In a science lesson differentiated marking and feedback was seen, but elsewhere the task was not differentiated. In another lesson students were engaged on a presentation activity that seemed more focussed on activity than learning. In a Year 13 chemistry lesson differentiation was outstanding: students working on individual areas for improvement; and in a Year 12 class there was constant challenge. In a design lesson there was no evidence of differentiation in task, assessment or folders and in another there was little evidence to help all students access the work. In another lesson it was noted that the display board divided assessment criteria into basic, sound and high ability – but this wasn’t reflected during the lesson. Elsewhere there were opportunities for independent working and the most able were being challenged. In a lesson in languages there were differentiated expectations in the task, but most students wrote little and the TA spent most of the time listening to the teacher rather than intervening. In another lessons there was evidence of extension tasks and ‘jigsaw’ groups used to differentiate leading to a scaffold used collaboratively to support less able. Elsewhere students were in differentiated groups with different levels of ‘scaffold’, although these seemed to handicap some groups rather than enable others. In a humanities lesson very good questioning skills led to differentiated engagement, but the most able were not challenged. In another lesson there was differentiated feedback in books, but students were unclear about their individual targets. Elsewhere students supported each other well in a group research project. In some lessons very effective individualised feedback was noted as a key differentiation strategy.
39
The Montsaye Approach In business questioning was used to differentiate, but the questions were often closed and didn’t open up wider thinking. Elsewhere open questions from students that could have led to deeper learning were closed down by the teacher. In PE students were grouped by ability and the non-participant was given a measuring (numeracy) task. In music students were seen performing a chord progression, but when one asked about how the chord was created the teacher didn’t take the opportunity to deepen the learning. Summary There were many examples of effective differentiation, but in every subject area there were also examples of tasks that lacked differentiation and missed opportunities to challenge students at all levels. There were some outstanding examples of feedback used at A’ Level to set individualised targets which students then acted on. This practice needs to be as embedded in keystages 3 and 4. We need to develop the following areas if we are to effectively differentiate so that all students are challenged:
Formative assessment that identifies the starting point and the end point so that progress can be assessed. Effective use of questioning and discussion to stimulate thinking and, thereby, learning. Effective use of group work and scaffolding. Using feedback as the primary means of differentiation and the setting of specific, focused targets. The primary issue is about consistency. This means practice which is equally effective rather than identical.
40
The Montsaye Approach Feedback WWW
Some good use of next steps marking seen with clearly differentiated next steps for students
Verbal feedback from teacher supported progress in most lessons
Good use of target time evident in some books, with clear pupil response to teacher marking
Good use of key words/literacy targets/differentiated feedback sheets in some lessons
Develop greater consistency in the use of feedback both whole school and within departments
Ensure regular feedback for all students in all classes
Further develop the use of pupil response to feedback
EBI
The principles below describe what we were hoping to see in lessons.
Montsaye’s four principles for feedback
Assessment criteria should be shared with students. Feedback may take a variety of forms. Teachers need to consider what form of feedback is appropriate to the task or activity. All feedback should promote learning and time should be given for students to respond to feedback. Different forms of feedback are appropriate to different tasks and no single form of feedback is appropriate across all subject areas. Heads of Department need to set the feedback policy in their subject area so that it fits within these four principles.
41
The Montsaye Approach Examples: In English Target Time work was clearly marked in books and seemed effective; but it had last been completed over a term previously and the targets that had come from it were too generalised eg. ‘proof reading’. In one lesson Target Time was observed and able students were supporting less able students. Elsewhere good evidence of self-assessment and students setting their own targets for lessons was seen. In an A Level class very precise feedback, criteria referenced, was provided. In a Year 11 class students were peer assessing an exam paper, but the teacher said she was going to assess them anyway which made the observer question the purpose of the activity. In maths there was good department practice and good verbal feedback. In one class the teacher provided individual feedback sheets after every test and students were able to respond before a re-test four weeks later. There was some evidence of students responding to their targets – but not all students. Some students were using green pens for ‘target time corrections’ but there was no teacher comment to guide them. Elsewhere there were simple comments in books, but no evidence of a dialogue. There was also evidence of good, differentiated feedback although it didn’t follow the department’s policy. In science differentiated feedback sheets were used and in a Year 7 lesson students self-assessed themselves against criteria before the lesson, setting targets, and this was repeated at the end of the lesson. Also seen in another lesson a 5 mark starter test provided a starting point for the unit: What do we already know? In a Year 12 lesson questioning during the starter led to effective feedback for individuals in the class. In design there was some good verbal feedback seen where students can talk about their targets; but there was no evidence of written feedback in one class but plenty in another. In one lesson target sheets were present but not completed. In sketch books in one lesson individualised targets were crossed off when they were achieved. In a Year 7 class, however, students seemed to not understand the skills they needed to develop or their strengths and areas for improvement. In languages there was evidence of regular feedback and a space for students to respond – but in some classes few or none had. The lower ability students seemed to have less idea of next steps than higher ability students. Elsewhere target time was used to ‘make corrections’ and there was a good example of feedback by question that the student had answered. A’ Level Languages involved criteria referenced feedback which was very effective. In humanities the quality of ‘next steps’ was high in some lessons but sometimes there was little evidence of written feedback in books. The quality of feedback in some A’ Level essays was a key feature. In business there was an evident change in practice regarding student self-assessment. In one lesson feedback in the form of questions was used in books, but students hadn’t responded to them. In music there was evidence of students responding to feedback. In drama students were given individual verbal feedback about their essays. In an ICT cover lesson good levels of peer to peer support was noted. In PE there was constant, personalised, individual feedback leading to evident progress.
42
The Montsaye Approach Summary Lots of feedback, whether written or verbal, was effective. There was, however, less evidence of students responding to their feedback. Where student response was evident then there was evidence of effective progress. Again there was some excellent feedback provided to sixth form students. This practice needs to be as embedded in keystages 3 and 4. We need to develop the following areas if we are to effectively use feedback:
All departments need to ensure that students are given opportunities to act upon feedback. Students need to be supported to develop the skills for self and peer assessment. Feedback needs to identify next steps in learning rather than next steps in an activity. The primary issue is about consistency. This means practice which is equally effective rather than identical.
Enjoyment and engagement WWW
Excellent pupil/teacher relationships support progress in the vast majority of lessons
Students work well together and are respectful of each others’ views
The vast majority of students have a very positive attitude to learning
Most teachers have high expectations of students’ behaviour
More lessons demonstrate challenging activities to fully engage students at all levels
More lessons encourage the active engagement of students in their own learning
Support staff in dealing swiftly with the low level disruptive behaviour seen in a few lessons
EBI
43
The Montsaye Approach The following extracts from The Montsaye Approach describe the enjoyment and engagement that we expect to see in lessons.
In every lesson it would be usual for the following to occur:
There are high expectations of students: “a culture and ethos of scholastic excellence, where the highest achievement in academic work is recognised” (Ofsted 2014). The Learning Objective(s) for the lesson are made clear to all the pupils in an appropriate manner To aid learning students are arranged according to a plan or method set by the teacher Prior learning is reviewed and links made to future learning: Where are we going? Have we got there? What have we learnt?
There are usually a range of activities that “engages and includes all pupils with work that is challenging enough and meets the pupils’ needs as identified by the teachers” (Ofsted 2014). Students’ curiosity is stimulated, often through a starter activity Every student has the opportunity for verbal or other informal feedback from the teacher The teacher uses AfL techniques, for example questioning to check on progress There are opportunities for: o Participation o Praise o Reflection o Engagement with feedback
Examples: In some lessons in English (and in design) students were seen to demonstrate good behaviour but too often to be off task. This was particularly noted amongst boys. The engagement flagged during lessons and there was a need for plenaries to refocus students which did not happen. In one class however routines, including reading whilst teacher sets up, were effectively used. Elsewhere in English there was evidence of learning not just performance. In maths the class was kept focussed by the teacher circulating, but a sense of challenge might have been more effective. Generally students are engaged, but in one lesson the group finished their work earlier than expected and no further work was planned. In a lesson in science a starter activity on the board settled students quickly and students were effectively engaged in questioning. In a Year 13 lesson the individual focus led to high levels of engagement. In design, where there was challenge and independence, there were high levels of engagement. In an A’ Level class students were highly engaged in individual projects. In a Year 7 class, however, there seemed little sense of urgency. In a lesson in humanities low level disruption was well dealt with and pace ensured engagement. Elsewhere a group research project involved most students, although some were a little passive. 44
The Montsaye Approach In an SEN lesson one student, who had been seen frustrated by the work elsewhere in the curriculum during the morning, was “working hard, making progress and proud of her work.” In languages a ‘pass the bomb’ activity using a teddy bear was engaging students. Elsewhere in student collaboration was used very effectively and students stated that “if we don’t know we have to ask other people on our table”; this collaboration was also seen in A Level Languages. In one lesson some good use of target language and high expectations led to a positive working environment. In business behaviour was impeccable, but was the lesson more about performance than learning? Elsewhere the students were in friendship groups and the task set was a little vague and so students moved off task when the teacher moved away. In an ICT cover lesson students were observed supporting each other to complete the tasks. In media students were provided with individual feedback to action, although at this stage of the course the feedback was more about tasks than about learning. In a PE BTEC class students were settling for lower level achievement rather than pushing for the next level.
One key comment that I won’t identify by subject: ‘Lessons are dull yet the students are focussed.’ However similar comments were made about lessons across the curriculum. Summary Lots of lessons were engaging and students evidently enjoyed their lessons. In many lessons, however, it was noted that students maintained focus despite uninspiring teaching; the engagement of students was not the issue rather the issue was the challenge of the learning Often the best practice in learning was seen in sixth form lessons. This practice needs to be as embedded in keystages 3 and 4. We need to develop the following areas if we are to develop effective learning:
Students need to be taught the skills of effective collaboration and opportunities provided in lessons. Lessons need to focus on learning not merely performance and activity. All students need opportunities to feel successful and to know that they can improve. The primary issue is about consistency. This means practice which is equally effective rather than identical.
45
The Montsaye Approach POLICY CLARIFICATION The following things are now elements of the Learning and Teaching Policy at Montsaye Academy: 1. Lessons should demonstrate the aspects of The Montsaye Approach. 2. Department Feedback and Marking Policies should be written to fit within ‘Montsaye’s Four Principles for Feedback’ as below: Montsaye’s four principles for feedback
Assessment criteria should be shared with students. Feedback may take a variety of forms. Teachers need to consider what form of feedback is appropriate to the task or activity. All feedback should promote learning and time should be given for students to respond to feedback. Different forms of feedback are appropriate to different tasks and no single form of feedback is appropriate across all subject areas. Heads of Department need to set the feedback policy in their subject area so that it fits within these four principles.
3. Department Differentiation Policies should be written to fit within ‘Montsaye’s Four Principles for Differentiation’ as below: Montsaye’s four principles for differentiation
Knowing each student’s progress is the foundation for differentiation. Differentiation is integral to the teaching process and not an add-on. Feedback and questioning are the key methods of differentiation. Differentiation may involve alternative tasks, scaffolding, and extension tasks. Heads of Department need to set the differentiation policy in their subject area so that it fits within these four principles.
4. Department Homework Policies should be written to fit within ‘Montsaye’s Four Principles
for Homework’ as below: Montsaye’s four principles for homework
Homework should be set regularly and recorded on ‘Show My Homework’. Homework should provide opportunities for pupils to prepare and research; to consolidate and reinforce learning; or to extend learning. Every pupil’s homework should provide appropriate challenge. Homework must be promptly marked and effective feedback provided. Heads of Department need to set the homework policy in their subject area so that it fits within these four principles.
46
The Montsaye Approach STAFF TRAINING DAYS – TUESDAY 1 SEPTEMBER 2015 AND WEDNESDAY 2 SEPTEMBER 2015 Tuesday 1 September 2015 – Main Hall 8.45
Whole Staff welcome back and results headlines – Jason and Matt
9.30 – onwards
Will Ord – Great Learners What is a great learner? What skills, attitudes and dispositions do children need to succeed in school & in life? What can teachers do to build great learning in their classrooms? This course will explore many practical strategies for developing confidence, independence, engagement, risk taking, thinking skills, good dialogue, reflection & memory in both the staff and classroom.
3.00
EASE graduates session with Gavin Kewley: an opportunity for those who have worked with Gavin in the EASE or Coaching programmes to get together with Gavin and discuss teaching and coaching for the year ahead. An optional session – but tea/coffee and biscuits will be provided in the Conference Room.
Wednesday 2 September 2015 – Main Hall 8.45
IRIS Connect – a brief introduction – Peter Ingles
9.00
Gavin Kewley - Coaching Skills for all staff
10.30
Break
10.45
Peter Tomkins – CPD, observation and Performance Management
11.00
Tracey O’Leary - Safeguarding Update
11.30
Pastoral Training in House groups
12.00 – Onwards
Department training for all staff
3.00
Information about the MA – James Underwood from University of Northampton: an opportunity to discuss research ideas, suitability for the course and relevant qualifications (support and teaching staff.) An optional session – but tea/coffee and biscuits will be provided in the Conference Room.
NB – Sixth Form registration all day Thursday 3 September 2015 3.20 – 4.20
Trip training for new staff in the Conference Room (Martin Jones)
Monday 7 September 2015 3.20 – 4.20
Safeguarding training for new staff (Paul Martin)
Existing staff who would like a trip safety or safeguarding refresher are welcome to attend these sessions.
47
The Montsaye Approach CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SESSIONS: 2015-2016 TERM 1 Please tear off this sheet, indicate below the session that you will attend in Term 1 and return to Peter Tomkins. All teaching staff are required to attend one CPD session a term, however you may attend as many sessions as you would like to attend. There is no requirement for support staff to attend any sessions, however you are welcome to attend any session that you are interested in. You do not have to have indicated in advance that you will attend a session. It is fine to turn up at sessions without a pre-booking. Name:
10 September o Growth Mindset (Louisa Copping) 17 September o What is learning and how do we ensure it happens? (Peter Tomkins) 24 September o Deliberate Practice and Grit (Laura Green) 1 October o "What our children really need to learn": how to turn Ds into Cs. (Jonathan Dean) 8 October o
Effective Questioning: What works and what gets in the way of effective learning (Gavin Kewley) – includes a follow up session on 22 October 2015 22 October o How do we know when great learning is happening? (Peter Tomkins) All CPD sessions will be in the Conference Room between 3.20 and 4.20.
Please return this sheet to Peter Tomkins to book the session you will attend this term.
48