Monitoring and Evaluation Week – ‘Curriculum Leaders’ A reminder from Mark Warren
As per published calendar harrow-way-mer-cycle-2016-17-final I would ask you to undertake learning walks next week with a focus on the use of the Harrow Way checklist hwcs-checklist in your department as well as questioning and improvements to areas for development that you identified last time. I have attached a curriculum-leaders-me template for you to complete as well as the Checklist as a reminder. This is the only M&E activity for this half term so it is important that you do have a good look at the work of your department in these important areas.
Could I suggest that Performing Arts look at each other’s areas, RE teams up with History/Geography and perhaps ICT could team up with Business Studies/PSHE? That way you will hopefully get some useful feedback.
Please could I ask that you save your findings in Staff on Mars/Department Monitoring and Evaluation/your subject folder by – Friday 3rd February at the latest.
Monitoring and Evaluation Week – A reminder from Mark Warren ‘Year Leaders’
As per the published calendar harrow-way-mer-cycle-2016-17-final next week is scheduled for this year’s Tutor time METAL. I have attached the relevant tutor-metal template and could I ask that you particularly focus on progress against last year’s areas for development. In order that you can complete this properly could I ask that you save your completed template by Friday 3rd February.
In order to share good practice could I ask that you pair up with another Year Leader on at least one day to visit a couple of your tutor groups together – perhaps Elaine with Rachel and Nick with Lyndsey. Year 11 will need to be looked at slightly differently.
Your final summary document should be saved in Staff on Mars/Department Monitoring and Evaluation 2016-17 and then your Year group folder.
Mastery Curriculum – Assessment without levels – A Reminder from Caroline
Just a few points that I wanted to address below:
- The purpose of trying to decide what a grade 2/ grade 4 would look like in Y7 was really to get you thinking about what might be appropriate for emerging/ developing/ secure and mastery levels. It may be more appropriate to think about 3/5/7 for your department.
- Some felt that the ‘I can’ levels are just being replaced by words. This might be true if classroom practice does not change to ensure that all students understand before the class moves on. The statements are really for tracking purposes. The focus should be more on the practice in the classroom (identifying the gaps and addressing them) than tracking student progress with emerging/ developing/ secure/ mastery
- Today we were aiming to launch the idea of a mastery curriculum. The INSET day on 7th Feb is devoted to writing/ tweaking the Yr 7 SOW as a department to ensure that the cycle of assessing, identifying gaps, addressing them/ learning deeper is embedded in those lessons. Each department has different starting points and, in fact, many have started already.
- I will circulate the booklet that I have written very soon to aid this. It includes proformas to help.
TEACH UNTIL EVERYONE GETS IT, THOSE THAT GET IT LEARN ‘DEEPER‘. I am looking forward to further discussion so please do come and see me.
Blog of the week: https://pragmaticreform.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/mastery/
This helps to underpin some of the ideas that we discussed on Wednesday evening.
Monitoring Progress in Year 7 -10
With regards Student’ outcomes, Ofsted inspectors will give most weight to the progress of students currently in the school rather than attainment and nationally published data. With this in mind, it is important Curriculum Leaders are able to articulate how well students are making progress in Year 7-10 in your subject area. At the staff meeting on Monday Graeme was able to outline how we are going to present this for you so you able to look at trends and patterns in your subject area for all groups of students. Below is a link to the presentation and the outcomes criteria for good in the new inspection framework.
Year 11 Boundary Leapers
As you will be aware in 2017, new GCSE qualifications in English and mathematics, graded 1-9, will be included in performance tables, with others to follow in 2018 and 2019. Points will be allocated to the new GCSEs on a 1-9 point scale corresponding to the new 1 to 9 grades, e.g. a grade 9 will get 9 points in the performance measures.
To minimize change, unreformed GCSEs and all other qualifications will be mapped onto the 1-9 scale from 2017, rather than mapping new GCSEs onto the 1-8 scale and moving to 1-9 when unreformed GCSEs are no longer available.
The DfE have allocated performance table points to unreformed GCSEs in 2017 and 2018 in line with Ofqual decisions on setting standards for new GCSEs. In September 2014, Ofqual confirmed that:
The bottom of grade 1 will be aligned with the bottom of grade G. Broadly the same proportion of students will achieve a grade 4 and above as currently achieve a grade C and above.
Broadly the same proportion of students will achieve a grade 7 and above as achieve an A and above. They have reflected this in performance table points so that the same points are awarded to a grade G and a grade 1; a grade C and a grade 4; and a grade A and a grade 7.
Points for other grades have been allocated between these anchor points. They is the fairest way of reflecting achievements of pupils working at broadly the same level during this transitional period. From 2019, all GCSEs will have been reformed and will be graded 1-9, with points awarded on a linear 1-9 scale
The table below contains the 2016, 2017, and 2018 performance tables points for a level and grade structure combination.
With this in mind we would like to identify the Boundary Leapers in each subject area especially those who will generate more points by going into the next grade… Further details and a 15 minute meeting with Nicola Pearce and myself will follow.
Andy Buck – Why leadership approach matters?
I was able to listen to a presentation by Andy Buck at the recent PiXL Main Meeting. I have mentioned his book’ Leadership Matters‘ on a number of occassions at middle leaders meetings since September.
As a starting point for what leaders need to do, he mentioned how David Pendleton’s model of leadership works well in a school context. He argues that all leaders need to take action on:
- Defining the vision and strategic approach
- Creating alignment
- Building and sustaining relationships
- Creating teams
- Planning and organising
- Delivering results and getting things done
He also mentioned from his own experience of over 25 years of working in school leadership, it’s not just what you do that matters, but also the how: your leadership approach. It reminds me of the old Bananarama song – It’s not what you do (but the way that you do it). I was a bit of a fan in the 80s!
Whatever level one works at in a school, Andy indicated that all of the six areas listed below will matter if you are going to have the impact for pupils you seek. But how you implement them can, and should, vary according to context.
Andy asked the question ‘So what do I mean by leadership approach?’ He said that Daniel Goleman, who is probably best known for his work on emotional intelligence, has also investigated the impact of what he calls leadership style on the climate of organisations. His typology has become the most commonly referenced model within UK education. It is simple and it resonates. In his work he identified that leaders at all levels tend to use the following six different leadership styles:
Directive Primary objective: compliance. You:
- Give lots of directives, not direction
- Expect immediate staff compliance
- Control tightly
- Rely on negative, corrective feedback
- Motivate by imposing sanctions for non-compliance – with few rewards
- Rarely explains rationale, only negative consequences
Visionary Primary objective: providing long-term direction and vision. You:
- Develop and articulate clear vision
- Solicit staff perspective on the vision and see selling the vision as key to success
- Persuade staff by explaining the rationale for the team’s best long-term interests
- Set standards and monitor performance in relation to the wider vision
- Motivate with balance of positive and negative feedback
Affiliative Primary objective: creating staff harmony. You:
- Are most concerned with promoting friendly interactions
- Place more emphasis on addressing staff needs than on goals and standards
- Pay attention to, and cares for, ‘the whole person’; stress things that keep people happy
- Avoid performance related confrontations
- Reward personal characteristics more than job performance
Democratic Primary objective: building commitment and generating new ideas. You:
- Trust that staff can develop the appropriate direction for themselves and the school
- Invite all staff to participate in decisions
- Reache decisions by consensus
- Hold many meetings and listen to staff concerns
- Reward adequate performance; rarely give negative feedback
Pace-setting Primary objective: making rapid progress and achieving tasks to high standards of excellence. You:
- Lead by example and have high standards
- Expect others to know the rationale behind what is being modelled
- Are apprehensive about delegating
- Take responsibility away if high performance is not forthcoming – have little sympathy for poor performance
- Rescue the situation or give detailed task instructions when staff experience difficulties
Coaching Primary objective: long term professional development of others. You:
- Help staff identify their unique strengths and weaknesses
- Encourage staff to establish long-range development goals
- Reach agreement with staff on the team leader’s and individuals’ roles in the development process
- Provide on-going advice and feedback
- May trade off immediate standards of performance for long-term development
Andy would argue that leaders at all levels need to be able to use a range of styles to suit their context and any particular situation. Some colleagues may need a very different approach from others and it’s always worth taking time to think about the best way to bring out the best in the individuals in a team. A competent but unconfident colleague may benefit from a coaching style of leadership. An able but resistant colleague may just need to be told what you expect from them, although in the long run this is probably neither acceptable nor sustainable.
Sometimes a team as a whole can need a very directional approach from a leader, particularly if it isn’t functioning particularly well. If one is working with a team of individuals that are not operating as a unit and where performance is very variable, you may just need to say ‘we need to do it like this’. Getting basics in place has to be the priority. If the situation you find yourself in is in disarray, setting clear expectations around behaviour, teaching approaches, marking and homework are all areas where you may just need to be fairly directive to start with.
A high-performing team, however, would find such an approach completely demotivating. Coming in and telling people what to do would be a disaster. You need to reflect upon the capacity, competence and experience of your team. Knowing which approach is best used with their team as a whole, or with different individuals within it, is where one’s professional judgement and emotional awareness as a leader come in. What is important is that you take the time to consciously think about which approach will build discretionary effort and have the overall impact you are seeking.
In the table below, he has attempted to summarise each of Goleman’s six styles and when it might be appropriate to use each.