primary science quality mark hub leader training part two slc london 20 th september 2011
Post on 20-Dec-2015
222 views
TRANSCRIPT
Primary Science Quality Mark hub leader training
part two
SLC London 20th September 2011
Programme
10.00 Sharing feedback10.30 PSQM website11.00 Break11.20 Supporting reflective practice12.30 Lunch1.15 Compiling a PSQM submission 2.45 Autumn schools’ training session3.00 Recruitment, deadlines etc3.15 Further questions 3.30 Close
Sharing feedback - 1
1. Recruitment 2. Submission feedback3. Evaluation 2010-114. Award events 5. Research6. Administration and management 7. Over to you
Recruitment
- Summer term - 150 began- Autumn term – 200 beginning- 60 active hubs- Scotland, Northern Ireland
Submission feedback
• Process- Review meeting- Feedback
• Completion numbers• Lessons learned• Exemplar material
Evaluation • Successful transition to national scheme - has remained developmental without compromising the
recognition of quality in science education.• Take-up and geographical coverage - very good as has Lines of communication have remained short and
effective.• PSQM has met its aims. Improved teachers' confidence and ability to teach science , had a positive impact
on pupils' performance, engagement and enjoyment. These views endorsed by Ofsted.• Processes and procedures for the award of PSQM are effective, do not take up an excessive amount of
teachers' time. The refinement of applications will be a constant task but most are already of high quality. • Hub Leaders and local networks are vital in ensuring good quality applications and fostering development.
Project Managers have retained a high profile approach which has also been appreciated at local level• Training and professional development are at the heart of PSQM. Many schools have experienced a change
in CPD culture as a result.• Good quality assurance procedures are in place to ensure that standards at the three levels of award are
consistent and maintained.• School response is positive. PSQM has whole school impact and raises the profile of science with senior
management.• Impact is substantial but naturally varies in kind between schools. PSQM could provide fertile ground for
research through follow-up of schools.• Future development of PSQM should take place without change to the model or essential structures.
Expansion is desirable but is already founded on a successful evidence based model.
Award events
Award events
Award events
Research
• An initial scoping project to find out which important questions about the teaching and learning of science in primary schools can be answered from the submissions made in 2011 to the Primary Science Quality Mark.
Administration and management
• Financial management through SLC EE/UH• Hub leaders paid by UH – visiting lecturer or
invoicing • Sarah Taylor seconded to SLC EE/UH01992 514787 [email protected] • Schools pay one fee- ASE membership will be
paid from this
Sharing feedback - 2
Feedback comments positive and negative on:• PSQM organisation including website• PSQM support material and resources • PSQM local arrangements
Break
Supporting reflective practice
PSQM – learning from the past and for the future
• The best PSQM submissions combine pragmatic subject management with reflective leadership
• A way to future proof science subject leaders in a less centralised culture, supporting them to make wise professional decisions rather than follow national formulas
Supporting reflective practice – 1Thoughtful action planning
Supporting teachers to write effective action plans• What has proved useful?• Successes• Difficulties
Two models for supporting effective action planning
SMART targets (Mawby et al)
• Specific • Measurable• Achievable• Realistic• Time related
Effective CPD model (Adey et al)
• Relevant to need• Sustained• Collaborative• Embedded in culture of school• Career linked
Supporting reflective practice – 2writing reflections
Given the nature of teaching, professional development and learning should never stop. Indeed, the process of reflection feeds a constructive spiral of professional development and competence. This should be both personally fulfilling for teachers and, but also lead to a steady increase in the quality of the education which is offered to children. (Pollard 1997)
• PSQM is characterised by its developmental and formative approach.
• Submission should not be a summative description of actions ticked off, but a truly evaluative statement of impact of actions on quality of science across the school.
• This requires a significant level of professional reflection by the subject leader.
Supporting reflective practice – 2
Supporting reflective practice - 3
Stenhouse (1975) defined three critical characteristics of what he called the ‘extended professionalism’• the commitment to systematic questioning
of one’s own teaching as a basis for development
• the commitment and skills to study one’s own teaching
• the concern to question and to test theory in practice .
Reflective writing - 1 How to move from the descriptive to the reflective?
Description Critical reflection
Describes what happened, supported by evidence . No analysis of impact against action plan.
Describes what happened and why, supported by evidence which has been carefully selected and annotated. Beginning to analyse impact that actions have had on colleagues and children, with some reference to intended impact. Some reference to future.
Uses evidence to analyse impact of actions on colleagues, children and self, with clear reference to original intended impact . Some self – questioning evident. Next steps identified.
Uses evidence to analyse impact against intended impact and also unexpected outcomes at institutional and personal level. Relates evaluation to broader issues and also challenges own assumptions. Next steps clearly outlined.
Reflective writing
Read some extracts from 2010-11 submissions.
• What support would you give these teachers to enable them to
be more reflective? write in a way that can be more
accurately and quickly reviewed?• What questions would you ask?• How does this influence the training you provide?
Lunch
Compiling a PSQM submission
• Core documents- Examples - Hints, tips ..\..\..\2011\website uploads\PDFS
Focus on portfolios
• Different models of organisation– Thematic– Class or year based– Criterion based
Examples
The next PSQM hub training session
Suggested programme9.30 How has it gone so far?
Sharing action plans 10.30 Break10.45 Using the web site 11.30 Developing reflective practice12.30 Lunch1.15 Writing a reflection 1.45 Types of evidence 2.30 Next steps for you 3.15 Close
Recruitment and deadlines April 30th May 2012 June 12 End July 12 Sept 12 End Sept
2012Around half term Oct 12
Submission deadline April 2011 cohort
Review submission April 2011 cohort
Outcomes notified April starts
Submission deadline Sept 2011 cohort
Review submissionSept 2011 cohort
Notify September 2011 cohort
Award events for both cohorts
www.psqm.org.uk
Any further questions?