R poole presentation sat 11 feb 2012

407 views
373 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
407
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
195
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

R poole presentation sat 11 feb 2012

  1. 1. INVESTIGATING IMPACT OF CPD “ It appears that the most important difference between the most and the least effective classrooms is the teacher, but the most important variable appears to be what they do, rather than what they know “ (Monk, 1994).
  2. 2. Identified needs <ul><li>Reflected existing role </li></ul><ul><li>No clear evidence of impact of CPD within school </li></ul><ul><li>Shrinking budget </li></ul><ul><li>Striving to become outstanding </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on teaching and learning </li></ul><ul><li>Research indicates that CPD (especially external) often has no impact on practice </li></ul>
  3. 3. Identified Needs <ul><li>“ We need to improve student achievement. This requires improving teacher quality. Improving the quality of entrants takes too long. So we have to make the teachers we have better. We can change teachers in a range of ways. Some will benefit students and some will not. Those that do involve changes in teacher practice. Changing practice requires new models of teacher learning and new models of professional development” (Dylan Wiliam, Annual ASCL conference March 2009) </li></ul>
  4. 4. Plan <ul><li>Set up a variety of different models to deliver CPD and monitor effectiveness ( teacher perception only ) </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation model – survey (using survey monkey) to record qualitative and quantitative feedback </li></ul>
  5. 5. Models of CPD delivery <ul><li>Discrete internal training – lesson observations, feedback (learning walks), faculty/year team meetings, partnerships beyond school </li></ul><ul><li>Explicit internal training – focus groups (based on school development plan); workshops (AfL); self-selecting groups, whole-staff sessions </li></ul><ul><li>Specialist groupings; MA, NQTs, GTPs </li></ul><ul><li>Externally provided training; exam boards, national/local initiatives, developing classroom practice, professional development for key role </li></ul>
  6. 6. Focus groups <ul><li>Home and Independent Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Cross-curricular projects </li></ul><ul><li>Flexible school day </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching and Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Developing the MLE as a learning tool </li></ul><ul><li>Key stage 5 developments (learning) </li></ul><ul><li>International Links </li></ul><ul><li>Student Leadership </li></ul>
  7. 7. Outcomes/Findings <ul><li>Qualitative feedback very revealing and gave more depth to findings – staff asked to give examples of impact on practice </li></ul><ul><li>Discrete internal training highly valued by staff (borne out by the literature) </li></ul><ul><li>Workshop-based training (AfL) had profound impact on practice (also subsequently evidenced by OfSTED report findings) </li></ul><ul><li>Whole-staff SEN and EAL training felt high impact– context-specific and relevant </li></ul>
  8. 8. Outcomes/Findings <ul><li>Focus groups – varying impact for variety of reasons </li></ul><ul><li>Specialist groupings – generally very positive – more credible ways of disseminating and building on work for wider impact needed </li></ul><ul><li>External INSET valued – very clearly defined and tightly regulated. More opportunities for effective follow-up and dissemination needed </li></ul>
  9. 9. Ways forward <ul><li>Extending into partnership working across schools and institutions as part of systems leadership </li></ul>

×