Session 6 Sulamin Rafiq Langdon School


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Session 6 Sulamin Rafiq Langdon School

  1. 1. Langdon Cluster Project Reference LE 4.1 P3
  2. 2. Project developed by: Langdon School (Lead School) All Saints Catholic School Willowfield School Northumberland Park School Haverstock School Institute of Education (Nominating Provider)
  3. 3. ‘Working creatively in ITT with schools facing challenging circumstances in the secondary phase’
  4. 4. ???
  5. 5. Understandable Title ‘Overcoming Barriers to Learning by Working as/alongside a Teaching Assistant’
  6. 6. Aim of project  Aim was to introduce Student/Trainee Teachers (S/TTs) as additional adults in the classroom.  Identify barriers to learning experienced by students.  Use strategies to enable all students (ECM) to work effectively.
  7. 7. Project outline  Framework/guidance documents to be produced for all.  S/TTs to take part in project as part of their SBS.  S/TTs to present findings in a case study at the end of their first placement.
  8. 8. Framework  A ‘dummies guide’ to implement the project.  Introduction and solutions to problems.  Tailor made observation sheets.  S/TT (Trainee Teacher) Log Book. (evidence).
  9. 9. Benefits to S/TTs.  Be aware of issues related to hindering progress of students.  S/TTs to have a valuable evidence base for curriculum assignment as a School Based Study (Primary evidence based).
  10. 10. Benefits to Schools  Improvements in the quality of school based training.  Opportunities for enhanced collaborative work.  CPD opportunities for ALL staff not just mentors.
  11. 11. Benefits to HEIs.  Opportunities to work more closely with specialist schools e.g. Training Schools, Leading Edge Schools and other Specialist Schools.  Better trained and hence better qualified S/TTs.
  12. 12. Progress & Development  Conference in June 2008: Produced a set of guidelines for all stakeholders – a framework.  Framework distributed in September 2008  Project ‘lift off’ during October 2008.
  13. 13. Working the project  Limited communication by email.  Under spend at one time.  Illness/Maternity leave.  Need a greater involvement of TAs.  TIME FACTOR.  Framework too ‘complicated’?
  14. 14. Benefits to TAs  Very positive.  Enjoyed the challenge of being a mentor – sense of responsibility  Boosted confidence.  Role of TA acknowledged and appreciated.
  15. 15. Unexpected Outcomes  Helped to better understand the QTS standards.  More reflective on learning due to SF presentation.  Changed perception of TAs.  Opportunity to why it’s useful to have a TA.
  16. 16. School Experiences  Previous good practice.  Good links with IoE.  All S/TTs involved irrespective of HEI provider.  Planning for the future.
  17. 17. PICTURES
  18. 18. Evaluation  Some schools not prepared enough  Lead school could visit to run training day for TAs/Whole School Staff.  Outreach work- visit other schools to give presentation of project.  Link project to Training School.