Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Name of participant:
Participant evidence
Background
Scope of the school Based on the SEF and 2011 Ofsted report,
improvement priority Teaching and Learning is to move from
Good to Outstanding. The targets are:
80% of 2014 lesson observations to
be Good (embedded) or
Outstanding (enhanced)
Sections re-Lesson Evaluation
Summary (LES) – scoring 5 or
below to improve
Inadequate (emerging) practice to
be eliminated.
Reasons for selection The Academy's mission statement, 'All will
of the school Succeed’ is based on the belief that we
improvement priority remove barriers to learning so that our
students gain the qualifications and life skills
required for their next steps in life. I firmly
believe in the moral imperative to improve
the life chances of our students.
Forty-four languages are spoken at the
academy, with 77% of students having
English as a second language, a significant
number of our students have asylum or
refugee status and Pupil Premium is 57%.
Students are performing below national
levels. Considering the level of multi-
deprivation, high learning needs and
complex variations in attainment, I believe
the key to raising student attainment,
(particularly those receiving Pupil Premium)
lies in quality first teaching.
In my relatively new role, Director of
Professional Capital, I am responsible for
whole staff development; the improvement
priority would focus specifically on Teaching
and Learning. Dylan Wiliam, (2011) suggests
that if students are to thrive in the complex,
unpredictable world of the 21st century, the
quality of the teachers in our schools must
improve. Based on extensive evidence on a
global scale, variability at classroom level of
teachers is at least four times that at school
level showing that it is the effectiveness of
individual teachers, not schools, that has
most impact on outcomes. Furthermore,
students taught by the most effective
teachers from a group of 50 teachers will
learn in six months, what those taught by the
average teacher, learn in a year. Students
taught by the least effective teachers will
take two years to achieve the same learning
(Hanushek and Rivkin, 2006).
The successful outcome of my impact
initiative will have wide-ranging impact on
student outcomes. When students are
positively challenged and stimulated by their
learning experiences they succeed; I believe
that quality first teaching is the catalyst for
such success.
Teams you worked During the year I worked with all teams at
with across the some stage but essentially SLT, Strand
school (curriculum) leaders, Social Capital Leaders,
other Achieve Together participants, new
staff including ITTs and the TLC groups.
Part 1 Planning for improvement Participant Sponsor verification, additional
document evidence and grade – Very Good /
references Good / Moderate / Poor
Outline of key actions The starting point was my self-development.
in Planning for To this end, I found the NPQSL modules and
improvement workshops informed some of my planning
and leadership. Hargreaves and Fullen’s
book ‘Professional Capital’, and their keynote
speech at the SSAT conference, were
informative and inspirational. The key
message, also reflected in the ‘Succeeding
in Senior Leadership’ module, was for
leaders to invest in staff by developing
human, social and decisional capital at all
levels; thus producing collective autonomy
and championing collective and distributed
leadership based on core values. It
broadened my view of leadership and
informed my leadership style, which I try to
flex with time, team and task, this is
something that I have strived to develop.
Additionally, Dylan Wiliam’s ‘Embedded
Formative Assessment’ book and
conferences helped me to create a vision for
the development of Teaching and Learning
at the academy. The Closing the Gap
module gave me clear direction for my
improvement priority, target setting and a
rigorous, systematic approach to data
interpretation.
Having analysed and compared the
academy’s results and the key data from
Lesson Evaluation Summaries (LES – Doc Doc. 2
2), I was able to define the specific areas of
literacy, stretching the higher attaining
students and assessment as key foci for
improving Teaching and Learning. This data,
alongside my personal knowledge of staff,
students, and our context, helped me
formulise an action plan (Doc.1). Doc. 1
What followed was a wide programme of
development working across all teams, so
that GCSE results hit 60% 5A*-C E/M 2014.
Competency: In order to set SMART targets I used RAISE,
Information seeking FFT, Local Authority Data Pack and internal
data to determine gaps in student
attainment. By using the data analysis tool Sponsor grade:
provided in Closing the Gap, I was able to
cross-reference data as highlighted below in
the analytical thinking section.
I used the 2012/13 LES (Doc.2) to help Doc. 2
identify specific strengths and areas of
development along with the SEF. I sought
further information through conversations
with the Director of Personalisation and
Strand Leaders, who have strong knowledge
of the quality of teaching and learning across
their teams. As individual staff performance
data remains confidential, I used other
means to help build information such as
informal learning walks involving key staff,
which made it possible to look at underlying
issues to create specific actions. An example
of this was the poor English results
compared to other core subjects, it was
necessary to consider the impact of EAL and
low literacy levels against the quality of
teaching across the subject, evidenced as
being one of the strongest strands in the
LES. This led to the conclusion, that the
development of literacy had to stretch
beyond the English strand and should be the
key responsibility of all teachers; this was a
further consideration in creating the Literacy
for Learning initiative.
Competency: Closing the gap required us to focus on rapid
Analytical thinking progress and personalisation. Stretching all Doc.1.2a
students but especially the highest prior
attaining would require re-focussing our Sponsor grade:
Productive Pedagogical approach,
emphasising the importance of the
Intellectual Quality pedagogy, to promote
cognitive acceleration. This became a focus
when planning the CPD programme.
Raise shows 2012/13 attainment:
5A*-CE/M measure is 5% below NA
English 9% significantly below NA
Science 3% below NA
Maths 2% above NA.
First language English, GCSE only
students, and higher prior
attainment students with other
groups, significantly
underperformed.
The LES showed literacy to be one of the Doc. 1.2b &
lowest grades across the subjects yet 1.2c
progress in English is good. Through
conversations with other Achieve Together
participants and Strand Leaders in addition
to analysing data from English on SPaG and
reading grades, it was clear that low literacy
levels created a significant barrier to learning
for an increasing number of students.
Literacy, Stretch and Challenge were two key
factors for consideration when planning my
improvement priority.
Cross-referencing student data with lesson
evaluation data showed correlation in deficit
areas such as literacy (Doc.2). Self and peer Doc. 2
assessment alongside cognition were further
areas for development in the learning
section. Regular formative and summative
assessment of student progress was also in
need of development. In the teaching section
of the LES (Doc. 2) the productive Doc. 2
pedagogies, literacy and pace and phasing,
scored only 5, thus needing intervention.
Areas of strength from strand to strand were
identified and used to develop others. These
findings formed the programme for CPD
2013/14.
Competency: Based on the above analysis I developed a
Delivering continuous comprehensive annual CPD and Induction
improvement programme. To build distributed leadership
at all levels, I planned to build a Teaching Sponsor grade:
and Learning Community with a core group
of aspirational and strong practitioners to
help share good practice and build
collegiality. The PLC section in the ‘Leading
Professional Development’ module and
Dylan Wiliam’s ‘Chapter X – TLCs’
influenced the development plan for the TLC.
In 2012, iTunesU was introduced as a key
tool for delivering ‘our curriculum’. Its
effectiveness was widely varied yet with
further development, this tool, used
consistently well, had excellent potential to
improve teaching and learning; this required
a long-term and would be supported by the
TLCs.
Achieve Together provided an opportunity for
a collective approach to developing literacy. I
scheduled and led monthly meetings on key
strategies such as ‘Literacy for Learning’. I
was determined to use this opportunity to
help co-ordinate a whole academy literacy
initiative towards continuous improvement
that could be sustained over time.
To help develop teaching practice directly, I
worked with Strand Leaders to create a
Strand Action Plan. Teachers were able to
focus on key areas of teaching and learning
in line with their 2013 lesson evaluation
outcomes. Stand Leaders were empowered
to drive this initiative forward including a plan
for half-termly, informal, peer observations to
support the process. In order to drive
continuous improvement of teaching and
learning I urgently needed to develop my
own confidence, knowledge and practice to
secure credibility in my new role, seeking
advice from a range of colleagues.
Competency: “Passionate leaders articulate the vision,
Personal drive passionate leadership is about a deep rooted
belief in better opportunities and alternative
outcomes.” Davies and Brighouse (2008). Sponsor grade:
My strong personal drive and passion to
achieve the highest standards for our
students applies equally to staff. In my 360,
personal drive came out as my strongest
quality. My commitment to self-improvement
by developing new knowledge and skills
enabled me to build the confidence and
competence to develop others, such as the
TLC Leaders who now lead the Teaching
and Learning Community. I believe the
freedoms and trust afforded to me when I
first took up the role, provided me with the
confidence to be creative, to try new ideas
and initiatives as demonstrated through the
various threads of this project. As a
completer-finisher, I see projects through to
completion. With the Literacy for Learning
initiative I saw the opportunity to pull several
small, individual projects together and drive it
forward as one large initiative that had much
greater impact and longevity.
Part 2 Leading the implementation of the priority Participant Sponsor verification, additional
across the school document evidence and grade – Very Good /
references Good / Moderate / Poor
Outline of key actions Create a CPD and Induction Programme
in Leading the Build a TLC
implementation of the Create a Strand Action Plan with SLs
priority across the Achieve Together group to collaborate on
school literacy for learning
Wider staff development opportunities,
including teacher exchange to build a wider
teaching and learning community – audit.
iTunesU development via TLC group
Teacher exchange to further support
professional development of teaching
leaders and iTunes U development
Development of assessment
Competency: In planning and QAing CPD, I tried to involve
Delivering continuous a range of staff, including NQTs and RQTS,
improvement as leaders. I believe delivering CPD presents Doc. 1.2d
a great opportunity to develop professional Doc. 1.2e Sponsor grade:
practice and leadership skills; thus building Doc. 1.2i
capacity for leadership at all levels to secure
long-term improvement.
Moving to Strand Level, I devised the Strand Doc. 1.2f
Action Plan through consultation with Strand
Leaders. Teachers were provided with a
personal action plan, with specific teaching
and learning foci based on lesson evaluation Doc. 1.2k
findings. Strand Leaders were expected to
monitor and support the plans and help build
in capacity for informal peer observations to
take place. I monitored the progress of this
initiative through Strand Leader meetings
building towards the formal lesson evaluation
process but could see a number of flaws in
its development; it required intervention.
The ‘Literacy for Learning’ project (Doc.6), Doc. 1.2g
which had a series of threads, each
championed by staff across a variety of
subjects, was highly effective as it produced
artefacts such as the Literacy Toolkits.
I began to build the Teaching and Learning Doc. 1.2h
Community, which started with eight
members of staff, all early stage but strong
practitioners; I deliberately selected
individuals without middle or senior
management roles. By the end of the year,
the group had thirty teachers; it was highly
impactful in terms of teaching and learning
development. The TLC currently comprises
three groups; induction TLCs, Teaching and
Learning Leaders and iTunesU TLCs. Each
group has a different focus and elements are
now functioning independently; my input
tends now to be more strategic than
operational. Going forward, these groups are
set up to operate wholly independently.
Finally, iTunesU was in need of a relaunch Doc. 1.2j
as it had lost its way. The reconstruction
process would be complex and highly time
consuming; the re-launch of this effective
teaching and learning tool was left until the
end of the year and would help to align our
curriculum, pedagogy and assessment.
When looking at assessment, research led Doc. 1.2l
me to Dylan Wiliam’s Embedding Formative
Assessment Programme, which I started to
embed into the CPD and Induction
programme. Having considered TEEP as a
development project, I decided the EFA
programme was a better fit for our particular
pedagogical approach and curriculum. It also
provided a sense of purpose and strong
direction for our Teaching and Learning
Leaders (who now deliver this programme).