Feeding the Pig

A few years ago, I started with a lovely Year 11 (mixed attainment) group who had not had the best of journeys through Years 7, 8, 9 and 10.  Through a combination of an inconsistent curriculum model and high staff turnover, their knowledge of English at that stage had more holes than the collated plot lines of the Marvel film canon.  That September I felt overwhelmed with the fact that all they knew for the literature course was 7 out of 15 poems, 2 out of 5 acts of ‘Macbeth’ and the basic plots for ‘A Christmas Carol’ and ‘An Inspector Calls’.  Their knowledge of apostrophes didn’t even bear thinking about.

When I compare our current Year 10 cohort to that group, part of me feels a little reassured.  They might have missed a fair chunk of Year 10, but they had a much better deal from Year 7 until that point and I know that most of them will come to Year 11 with more English-based knowledge than my old group did.  Surely, if I could support that previous class through the exams with success, we can do the same for our current students.

When it comes to how I approached that group, it really comes down to a crude, yet accurate, analogy that I have heard many people use in education: weighing a pig doesn’t make it any fatter, feeding it does.  So I took the decision to not put any numbers in their frequent feedback.  No grades.  No mark scheme criteria.  No levels.  I needed to get them to believe in themselves and know what they needed to do to improve; knowing that there was ‘some understanding of context’ was unlikely to help them with this.

Instead, there were lots of short bursts of practice, with specific steps on how to improve through assessment for learning that led to responsive teaching.  I changed lesson plans frequently, adapting for gaps in knowledge and misconceptions that I’d discovered.  We broke complex tasks down into steps, rehearsing them again and again until they could do it without me prompting.  In essence: assess, teach, repeat.

When I think about how I’m going to teach Year 11 in September, I’m planning on doing the same again (albeit from a slight distance).  Lots of low stakes quizzing to find the gaps in knowledge and retrieving what they know; lots of modelling, explaining and scaffolding to illustrate what they need to know; and monitoring them closely to know where to go next, what to teach next and when I can start to remove scaffolds.

English Curriculum Thinking

https://www.loom.com/share/ea48047fbd404b709835ec388f2eb5fc

Showing and Not Telling Through Video Feedback

When the pandemic lockdown first began, I had a brief period to finally read through the spring issue of The Chartered College of Teaching’s ‘Impact’ journal, which had been sitting on my dining room table for some time.  Fancourt’s article on using audio feedback with KS5 groups, therefore, was timely for me; it gave me the perfect chance to ensure that my own A level groups would continue to get effective feedback whilst we all worked from home.

However, the benefits that Fancourt outlines have led me to think about how I am likely to continue this method when we are all back in school, as she highlights the benefits of it being time-efficient for staff and low-threat for students.

The Process

Students have been submitting their essays via Microsoft Teams for me, and this has still been the case for the video feedback, though I don’t need to try and edit it with the restrictions of text boxes or print a copy for my usual annotations).  Instead, I open the document on my computer and start by reading through, making some brief (and very messy) notes on paper as I go, creating a rough plan for the video.

Once I’ve read through and made my notes, I then used screen recording software (there are many options here, with some devices having it built in, though Loom is a popular - and free - possibility) to record the video.  After it’s been recorded, I then upload the video to my OneDrive and share the link in the ‘feedback’ box for the assignment where the work is submitted, ready for the student to access.

The next stage, which Fancourt mentions in her article, is that students fill in a reflection document to record their interpretation of the feedback.  I adapted the questions that Fancourt used to help students support their reflection and redraft (see links at the end of the blog) and also asked that students return the document to me once completed.  I felt that this was a crucial stage in the process, as it:

• Gave students a sense of accountability for recording their feedback
• Ensured that students had a log of targets for future essays (I get them to copy and paste them onto the next piece of work to help me with the marking)
• Ensured that students attempted to use their targets to improve
• Allowed me to check that students understood my feedback where needed

Obviously, it is possible that this borders on a mutation of ‘triple marking’, so I want to highlight that the submission of these sheets wasn’t for the purpose of more feedback.  Instead, I saw it as a quality-assurance measure whilst I trained students in how to respond to feedback effectively (allowing me to address the odd student who made notes that were too brief or didn’t answer all of the reflection questions).

Reflections

I found the video element particularly helpful, especially whilst we were working remotely, as it allowed me to highlight where my feedback applied to, as well as modelling improvements in the same way that I would do in a lesson.  This was important to me, as I agree with Christodoulou that feedback should be ‘a recipe’ for improvement; and recipes are easier for many to follow when ‘show not tell’ is used to illustrate how to follow the steps.

Students were also positive about the feedback, highlighting the advantages with the comments below:

• “I found it easier to understand the context of my targets and how they were linked.”
• “The feedback was in more depth, as you explained the targets in more detail.”
• “Making my own notes from your feedback helped me to engage with my targets.”

Next Steps?

As I have already mentioned, I will definitely be looking to use video feedback for KS5 classes when we go back to ‘normal’ (or something that’s close to normal at least.  However, I admit that the process might not be as useful for individual feedback for a class of 30, since it is likely that this would increase workload.

However, it’s certainly useful as a substitute for written feedback for specific students who have low literacy and I’d also consider using the process for whole-class feedback, perhaps getting students to engage with the video and make notes at home before I then develop the feedback and give more time for independent practice in the classroom.

Links:

Fancourt’s Impact article: Listen and Respond: Evaluating the Use of Audio Feedback:

https://bit.ly/ImpactFancourt 

My self reflection sheets (including a template and a student example):

https://bit.ly/ReflectionSheets  

Re-thinking KS3 Assessment

Despite the introduction of ‘life after levels’, KS3 assessment in my department still used similar assessment processes.  These weren’t always workload-friendly and also had problems in the way that they then impacted data entry.  This year, we’ve trialled a new approach

What did KS3 assessment look like before?

Our previous KS3 curriculum model was taught across 4 lessons a week with a 2:2 split across two teachers.  Each teacher taught a different unit, where one focused mostly on reading skills and the other on writing.  This model is one we still hold, as it allows us to exploit some of the benefits of interleaving, as well as being able to accommodate part-time teachers without any awkward splits or ‘passing the baton’ from week to week.

Our assessment of KS3 work at this time, however, was not so effective.  In a model that many English teachers will be familiar with, students completed an assessment piece at the end of each half term (alternating between reading and writing assessments).  These were then assessed using a skills-based criteria that was similar to APP, but used our school’s KS3 grading system of Emerging/Developing/Confident/Excelling.

Evaluating the previous model

The biggest drawback to the previous model by far was the impact on staff workload.  Though staff who had multiple KS3 groups would find their planning load lighter if they had multiple classes on the same topic, come assessment time some staff would have 3 or more sets of books to mark at a similar time, with many staff choosing to take these home over the holidays.

The summative nature of the assessments also meant that it could be difficult to ensure that teachers and students had time to address misconceptions and go over gaps in knowledge, since half of the assessments that took place were positioned at the end of the unit.

It was also clear that the presence of a summative assessment impacted the teaching from some staff.  Though our units were labelled as ‘reading-focused’ or ‘writing-focused’, the intention was always that reading, writing and oracy would be integrated to the teaching across a unit.  However, there were instances where teachers would ‘teach to the test’ to support students’ success in the assessment (which meant that our curriculum became narrowed).

Lastly, we found that the assessment gradings were not always reliable indicators of students’ attainment.  Because of this, we needed to encourage staff to be holistic when entering data for reports (meaning that the grading of the assessments started to become redundant).

This year’s approach

This year, we made the decision to review assessment across KS3, in line with a whole-school review.  Yet continuing with the old model in the meantime did not make sense to me, especially given that it increased workload and didn’t have a noticeable impact on students’ learning.

Our 2:2 split remained, but our medium-term plans are now more granular.  This supports our staff in being more consistent with core knowledge/sequencing, as well as ensuring that reading, writing and oracy are integrated into all units.

In terms of assessment, we have scrapped the summative assessments completely, with staff giving formative feedback on work alongside explicit signposting in the schemes for suggestions of assessment activities and also suggestions of where to integrate follow-up lessons to address misconceptions and model the improvements for a class.

In terms of data entry, we still use the whole-school grading system but it’s all holistic.  To support in the accuracy of these judgements, we have used some department time to standardise using a slimmed-down version of the criteria while we evaluate how we assess and record attainment at KS3.  The fact that the schemes now signpost suggestions of assessment activities has also helped with this, as we can compare pieces across classes within the standardisation process.

Next steps

As we review our whole-school assessment for KS3, I expect that there will be changes that we make to refine our process further.  That being said, it makes me glad to see that what was a temporary measure to support workload has actually started us on the way to more effective assessment for learning for our students.

Why MATs don’t have to be a bad thing

When I started teaching, I applied for a position at an academy.  After looking around and talking to some of the staff and students, I was won over and, when I started there as an NQT, I had no regrets.  However, it’s disconcerting to think back to all of the warnings I was given by colleagues in my placement schools, on twitter and in my social groups.  Even more worrying was the reaction I got from teachers at teachmeets in the area, where I felt I had to defend my choice of school.  At this point, it was clear that there was a lack of trust towards academies and I feel that this is now extended to multi-academy trusts (MATs).

Partially, this could be due to a fear of the unknown, since colleagues who have been working outside of MATs might be unaware of what working in a MAT is like.  However, when you think about the stereotype of a MAT that’s common amongst teachers, it’s easy to see that there are monsters in the deep (whether they be the dubious dealings of leaders on luxurious salaries, or the perception of a corporate approach where schools become little more than clones).  Yet, there is a lack of coverage of how a MAT might have benefit for students or staff, thus impacting the views of the few teachers who might have been interested.

These ideas about MATs are also reflected in social media.  Recently, I polled 1,228 tweeting teachers on their opinion of working for a MAT and 51% of them  said that they’d feel unhappy with it, with 39% seeing it as a positive thing and 10% having a more nuanced view.  The comments that followed this up suggested that views were based largely on personal experience, with a dislike for ‘chains’ that constrict teacher autonomy and an emphasis on the the idea that it’s leadership that matters.  In this sense, a MAT school is no different from any other school: strong, consistent leaders who put their students and staff first create an environment that teachers enjoy being a part of.  One teacher (Kate, who tweets at @AlwaysBeMarking) even highlighted how different large MATs can be, as she’d had experience with both a ‘living nightmare’ of a place to work versus the ‘supportive partner’ she works with now.  

I worked in a academy that started to support other schools in difficult circumstances, as well as starting its own primary to cater for a boost in new housing.  From this, a small MAT grew where schools kept their own identities but worked together to do the right thing by their students and staff.  Since then, I’ve moved to another school in the MAT and the trust has evolved to become a more collaborative group.

Staff benefit hugely from being part of this MAT: as a new Director of English, I had support from the trust leadership team for two days a week.  This meant that I had an opportunity to develop as a leader, rather than drown in an endless list of jobs to do.  Similarly, staff are also able to complete various qualifications through opportunities created by being part of the trust.  However, it isn’t just about developing staff who are hoping to lead.  Being part of the trust means that it’s easy to collaborate, as we can share resources and come together for external training/speakers at cross-trust meetings or training days.  It’s also a great way for staff to see excellent practice in other schools; this has been particularly useful for the media staff I line-manage, who have benefitted from peer observations across two schools instead of just one.

Students are also able to enjoy the benefits of the above, as well as making the most of additional subject expertise across several schools- a priority when the teacher recruitment crisis looks set to get worse.  In English, it’s meant that I’ve been able to utilise specialists to deliver targeted interventions.  In Science, A Level students have been able to access experts for the topics they study. 

However, the really amazing thing about the MAT I work in with is its focus on doing the right thing by staff and students.  This even boils down to the CEO working closely with the unions when developing our workload charter.  Overall, this means that the well-being of staff is valued, and the impact it has on students is acknowledged.

I realise that my experience with a MAT isn’t comparable to other trusts, not by far.  But I also know that it isn’t the only trust effectively capitalising on the MAT model to best support staff and students.  The stereotype of a ‘typical MAT school’ needs to be challenged; nobody should be made to feel they need to defend working in one.  Instead, we should be allowed to feel proud.

The Importance of Subject-Specific CPD

Imagine walking into a hall of around 100 students, with some who have just started school and others who are near the end of their academic journey.  Perhaps you plan to read out the content of a PowerPoint.  Or maybe you will engage them all with a game of table tennis with students?

Either way, how confident are you that you would be able to deliver a lesson that would effectively meet the learning needs of such a wide range of ages and abilities?  I certainly wouldn’t be, and the same would go for delivering a whole-staff training session that would effectively meet the needs of staff who are at different points in their career and approach their teaching in different ways.

This is one reason why I feel CPD on a whole-school level is problematic.  Every single teacher should be able to leave one of these sessions feeling that they have had time to think and reflect in order to improve the learning of their students.  Instead, many leave with a list of strategies that they’ve already tried (and perhaps didn’t work) or aren’t relevant to their classroom.

It is sensible that schools are leaving behind the ‘whole-school CPD’ model, in favour of subject-specific development.  This is vital as the time spent working on specific subjects allows teachers to develop their subject knowledge, support their workload through team-planning and focus on pedagogy/research that is specific to their discipline.  Furthermore, the fact that the training is led by a head of department means that they know their teams and can plan sessions to support the needs of each member of staff in their department.

This being said, it is crucial to train middle leaders if this is to be effective, or we run the risk of department meetings that consist of a list of notices rather than time to enhance the development of our staff.  CPD time should be primarily based in departments, with middle leaders trained in the best ways to train and develop staff.  Part of this also means planning out the focus for a department; we often consider the sequencing and revisiting of knowledge for our students, but the same is true for

our staff.  Activities could involve engaging with research and considering the impact on teaching, reflecting on recent peer observations, reading around a specific text/area of study to develop subject knowledge or even time to read books on teaching and learning.  You could even use videos of teachers in your department to discuss together what effective teaching is for you.

Overall, the main things that could improve CPD for teachers? Smaller class sizes.

Thanks to @teacherthunks , @trudygroskop , @meshishk and @bossymisst for the feedback on twitter!

My Visualiser: Small Camera, Big Impact

When I started to use a visualiser, I was surprised by some of the feedback from students where they saw it as a helpful tool.  One was the fact that I was no longer ‘in the way’ when modelling on the board (it probably doesn’t help that I’m not always great at standing still during delivery); the second was that students felt that my explanations were clearer, as I took more time.

It is true that sitting to model and write does make me slow down a little, mostly as it has made me more aware of how I am delivering the explanations whilst I model.  The summary of effective direct instruction from Barack Rosenshine (2012) was really influential here, as it made it reconsider the importance of making modelling matter.

To start with, this was as simple as me narrating my thought process (taking the effort to slow down and pause as appropriate) and annotating this thought process as I go.  This meant that students had the scaffold of this thought process when they either continued the piece I started or started anew with a different focus.  This was a big shift from the rushed models I’d previously completed on the whiteboard, as being conscious of the limited space meant that I was often restricted to a single paragraph, with limited annotations.

Over time, I also started to replace more of my pre-prepared models with a live version, using the visualiser.  For example, when feeding back after looking at students’ work, I now tend to write model to show students how to get past the misconceptions I identified by modelling those mistakes and the correcting of them.  Again, modelling the thought process has been important here as I’ve had students reflect by asking which questions I asked myself whilst writing that they didn’t ask themselves, before they redraft their original piece.  What I’m aiming to develop is the idea that they shouldn’t ‘just write’ (as is the temptation in exams where time is limited and the required knowledge is substantial); instead, I want to embed the process of ‘write > reflect > repeat’.

As well as modelling the process for written answers (which has proved more successful than the various acronyms I’ve used for analytical paragraphs before), I’ve also used the visualiser to model planning of tasks/writing and the annotation of texts.  I believe that this has supported students’ cognitive load because (as one student mentioned) I’m not ‘getting in the way’ of the explanation/modelling.  Students can look and the board and listen to my narration; they don’t need to be distracted by my physical presence.

Now I am more confident with using the visualiser, I now find that I use it without planning to, which has made it particularly useful when it comes to addressing misconceptions or sharing successes ‘in the moment’ as well as live marking a piece to model effective peer/self assessment.