Evaluating CPD: hard but not impossible

Screenshot 2016-04-09 08.22.31*

At a time of shrinking budgets, there is a need for reliable formative and summative feedback about the efficacy of professional learning. It is not acceptable to assume that, however well intentioned or well received a school’s CPD programme is, it is necessarily right for it to continue. If it is not having an impact on student outcomes, whether in the narrowest sense of achievement or more broadly across other competencies, then it has, at the very least, to be called into question. It may well be that other forms of professional learning are more effective, or perhaps, as some would argue, that no CPD would have more impact, freeing up busy teachers to plan and mark better. If you have no way of knowing, then you may be wasting valuable time and resources on the wrong thing.

The problem is that whilst we may well agree that evaluating the impact of training on student outcomes is important, it is far from straightforward to measure this impact in a robust and efficient way. I know how hard it is because we have spent the past few years trying to figure out how to do evaluation better. I don’t think we have cracked it – far from it – but with the support of organisations like the fantastic Teacher Development Trust, we are getting closer to understanding what successful evaluation looks like and how to align our systems and practices so they are congruent with the content and aims of our professional learning.

There are a number of theoretical models for evaluating professional development, all of which have benefits and flaws. Kirkpatrick’s (1959, 1977, 1978) model from the world of business offers four types of evaluation. Despite its criticisms, such as the failure to consider the wider cultural factors of the organisation and assumptions about the causality between the levels, it provides a useful framework for thinking about what should go into effective evaluation. Likewise, although it runs counter to what we know about effective CPD, namely having a clear sense of intended outcomes, Scriven’s (1972) notion of goal-free evaluation also has its place, allowing within the evaluation process a place for identifying a range of impact outcomes, whether originally intended or not.

My favourite model for evaluating CPD, however, is Guskey’s (2000) hierarchy of five levels of impact. In this model the five levels are arranged hierarchically with each one increasing in complexity. The final two levels – including the last one which looks at the impact of professional learning on student outcomes – are the hardest to achieve, which no doubt explains why so many schools, including my own, have not done them terribly well. In many respects Guskey’s model bears similarities to Kirkpatrick’s framework, but crucially it adds a fifth level of evaluation, one that looks at the impact at an organisational level, which is useful for trying to make sure that the aims of a school’s CPD programmes are not undermined elsewhere by its culture or systems.

In the rest of this post, I will briefly outline each of the five levels in Guskey’s model and then explain what practices we are currently undertaking within each to improve the evaluation of our professional development. This is very much still a work in progress, so any feedback received would help us make further refinements moving forward.

  1. Reaction quality Evaluates how staff feel about the quality of their professional learning

In many respects, this area of evaluation is quite soft: basing evaluation on whether participants liked or disliked specific activities rather than objectively evaluating its impact on where it counts has been rightfully challenged as being weak. I do, think, however, that it is still important to include some element of staff qualitative feedback within the overall evaluation process, particularly if suggestions can be acted upon easily to increase buy-in.

To this end, we send out reaction quality surveys after every short form CPD session. It has only two sections. The first asks participants to evaluate the extent to which session objectives have been met, whilst the second invites more ‘goal free’ reaction feedback by asking about what was learned and what participants would like to see included or amended in future sessions.

Screenshot 2016-04-09 08.21.02

  1. Learning evaluationmeasures knowledge, skills and attitudes acquired through training

This aspect of evaluation is linked in with our appraisal process. I have already written about the changes to our appraisal this year, which have gone down well so far with enhancements to follow after feedback. Essentially, all teachers, classroom support staff and non-teaching staff identify two main goals: one that is a subject (or department/role) target orientated towards developing a specific aspect of pedagogy, practice or knowledge, whilst the second is a learning question, allowing for the enquiries into the more nebulous and complex aspects of improvement that lie at the heart of our daily practice.

The subject goal is supported by departments or teams during their fortnightly subject CPD time. For instance, a couple of science teachers seeking to improve their modelling might work together using IRIS lesson observation equipment, or a group of religious studies teachers might run seminars during department pedagogy time on the knowledge required to teach their new specifications. The enquiry question is supported by the wider CPD programme, the bulk of which takes places in learning communities that are selected during the appraisal process and aim to provide the necessary input and ongoing support.

The evaluation itself comes in two parts. The first is a professional audit, which we instigated for the first time last year and will be revisited in the summer term to see the extent to which knowledge has changed. The second part is built into the appraisal process, where through a combination of a learning journal, voluntary targeted observations and professional dialogue colleagues can demonstrate the new knowledge and insights they have acquired in their department training or through participation in their learning community.

The model is based upon a number of sources, including the helpful lesson study enquiry cycle put together by the Teacher Development Trust. Both interim appraisal and annual appraisals provide opportunities for meaningful discussions about individual development, as well as for the evaluation of individual and aggregated professional learning. This is not so much about holding individuals to account, but rather as a means of fostering an ethos of continual improvement and gaining insight of what training adds value and what doesn’t.

  1. Organisational evaluation – assesses the support and ethos of the organisation

This third level of evaluation in Guskey’s model represents the missing part of Kirkpatrick’s framework – evaluation of school ethos and support for CPD. As Guskey observes, it would be ridiculous for an individual teacher or group of teachers to receive high quality training that they understand in theory, agree with in principle but cannot put into practice because of ‘organizational practices that are incompatible with implementation efforts’.

The problem, however, with assessing the support and ethos across a whole school, and evaluating whether it is aligned with the objectives and content of the professional learning programme, is that it requires an objective, external voice – the ‘critical friend’ cited in recent reports into effective teaching and professional development. Fortunately, we are members of the Teacher Development Trust and one of the benefits of membership to their network is the regular external audit of CPD. Unlike other brands of external judgement, this one is supportive and helpful – both in the summative, but moreover in the formative sense. This post from TeacherToolkit provides a useful insight into one school’s experience of the TDT audit.

The audit is split into 7 categories with three levels of award for elements within these categories – Gold, Silver and Bronze. In assessing the overall quality of professional learning, it canvasses the views of all members of teaching and non-teaching staff. This is done via a pre-visit survey and then through extended interviews with a cross-section of staff during the day of the evaluation, which is peer reviewed with another member of the network. What I particularly like about the TDT audit is the way it provides rigorous external feedback into what is working and what requires improvement. There is no spurious judgement, but rather crucial feedback about what staff think about their own school’s CPD and a cool appraisal of whether of not its culture and practices enable new learning to be enacted.

  1. Behaviour evaluation – focuses on changes in behaviours as a result of training received

Professional development cannot really considered to have been successful if the day-to-day behaviours of teachers have not changed. As we all know, this usually takes a great deal of time. Even small changes in practice, such as trying to avoid talking whilst students are working can take a great deal of practice and feedback. Focused observations are a useful support in this process and can be requested by individuals who want to gain feedback on how their behaviours have changed and what they may wish to consider to change in the future. These observations are agreed at the outset and are purely developmental.

Perhaps the most reliable and useful source of ongoing evaluation into a teacher’s behaviorial change in the classroom is from the students’ themselves. Next year, we intend to introduce student evaluations, which again are not designed to catch staff out but rather to gain useful feedback for teachers with regards to the one or two identified areas of change that they have been deliberately working on, for either their subject goal or their learning question. It was too soon to introduce this year, particularly as we wanted to be careful about how we make sure that student evaluations are embraced not feared.

  1. Results evaluation assesses the impact of professional development on outcomes

At the outset of the appraisal in early October, teachers identify specific classes, groups of students and aspects of their classroom teaching or their students’ learning that they want to change as a consequence of their professional learning. This identification of outcomes is a structured and supported process, which not only looks back at previous examined and non-examined results, but also looks forward to future curriculum and timetable challenges. We no longer set arbitrary performance targets, but do seek to establish clearly-defined outcomes in relation to student learning. Again, the TDT resources have proven a very useful guide.

The intention for this year is to look closely at the impact of bespoke department and school-wide professional development on specified student outcomes. There may be some mileage in considering this in the aggregate too, but we are very much aware that much of the nuance is lost in such a process. It may be possible in the future to more closely align the goals of individual classroom contexts to those at department or whole school level, but this is very much something for the future. This is by no means a flawless approach, but it does get much closer to evaluating the thread between teacher growth and student achievement. David Weston, Chief Executive of the Teacher Development Trust, provides a different more immediate way of building evaluation into professional development with this wonderful worked example of a group of science teachers working on a common problem.

As I have already stressed, ours is still very much a work in progress. I do think, however, that we are much further along in understanding the importance of evaluation in relation to professional development, and what this might look like in practice.

Thanks for reading.


Bates (2004) ‘A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence’

Creemers B., L. Kyriakides and P. Antoniou (2013) Teacher Professional Development for Improving Quality of Teaching

Guskey, T (2000) Evaluating Professional Development

Scriven (1991) ‘Prose and Cons about Goal-Free Evaluation

* image adapted from: http://www.growthengineering.co.uk/why-public-recognition-motivates-us/


What Makes Great Training? 10 ideas for developing subject knowledge and pedagogy

Screenshot 2016-01-10 08.08.45

The need to improve the quality of professional training for teachers is, I think, becoming increasingly well understood. In a time of shrinking budgets and teacher shortages, improving professional development has in some ways become as important about teacher recruitment and retention as improving student outcomes.

Recent publications have provided clarity to where leaders should target their efforts to improve in-school professional learning. The 2014 Sutton Trust report into Great Teaching, for instance, outlines the benefits on student outcomes of teachers who are well versed in their subject.

the most effective teachers have deep knowledge of the subjects they teach, and when teachers’ knowledge falls below a certain level it is a significant impediment to student;’ learning. As well as a strong understanding of the material being taught, teacher must also understand the ways students think about the content, be able to evaluate the thinking behind students’ own methods, and identify common misconception.’

The need to focus school CPD on developing subject-pedagogy alongside more generic forms of training is also a feature of the more recent Teacher Development review, Developing Great Teaching:

the findings from this review indicate the importance of focussing on generic and subject specific pedagogy, so it will be important to consider how subject expertise in particular can be developed alongside more generic aspects as part of CPDL.

In many respects, it should not come as any great surprise that the greatest impact on student outcomes is likely to come from a teacher who knows their subject well and how to teach the nuances and challenges of it to different learners at different stages of their development. The heavy focus on developing ‘generic’ skills was wrong and imbalanced.

As with most things related to teacher development, however, just knowing about what to do can be a far cry from actually being able to put it into practice. I know a lot of teachers, myself included, who broadly understand how to improve aspects of pedagogy, such as giving explanations, honing questioning or improving modeling, but they are not always able to do so themselves. Implementing the how often proves more difficult than understanding the why.

In similar vein, I suspect some school leaders understand the need to focus CPD efforts on developing subject pedagogy, but have not yet figured out how to do it effectively. I know from my own experience how hard it is to make a more subject-specific model of professional learning work. Time is a significant factor, but so are levels of expertise, particularly, for example, amongst some heads of departments.

For years, I suspect that many subject leaders have not really been responsible for shaping the professional development of their teams. Just turning over that responsibility– particularly at a time of considerable change in exam syllabus and assessment – is unlikely to bring about any significant change in the quality of professional learning. This responsibility is significant, especially for less experienced colleagues or colleagues schooled in genericism.

Last September, we changed our curriculum, which meant we could enshrine two hours of professional development a week. The majority of that time – around 40+ hours – is dedicated to improving subject knowledge and subject pedagogy. Whilst this is fantastic, just making more time available was only ever a part of the answer to reversing the failings of the past. We want departments to be in a position to continually develop a better understanding of their subject’s unique demands, so we need to provide them with the tools and guidance to make this happen, which takes time and careful planning.

10 Ideas for improving subject knowledge and pedagogy

In this post I offer 10 ideas about the kinds of activities and resources that we have looked to try and introduce to help teachers and departments to develop their subject knowledge and subject pedagogy. It is not an exhaustive list, but I hope it gives a few pointers about where to start the process of developing subject-specific CPD, or where further improvements can be made for those already in a strong position, such as Durrington School in West Sussex.

  1. Presentations and seminars 

Giving presentations or running seminars on particular areas of strength is an excellent way of sharing the responsibility for developing subject knowledge across a department and, moreover, for improving the ability of individuals to present to adult learners. Some of our departments have developed their own subject knowledge audits to identify strengths and design seminar schedules across the course of the year. In some of these sessions there has bee pre reading, or post seminar activities, such as discussion groups or lesson and curriculum planning sessions. It is our intention to have audits for every subject, partly to pinpoint training needs, but also to help identify and, in turn, circulate expertise more easily, particularly across larger departments.

  1. Subject knowledge audits

Identifying the spread of knowledge in a department is an important step in planning for the development of individual teachers and making sure the needs of the students are successfully met. Subject audits also provide an excellent means of identifying existing areas of expertise, which can be harnessed for the benefit of others. Threshold concepts might be a good way to audit knowledge, but whatever methodology is used it is important that the subject knowledge requirements identified are genuine. In some subjects, like English, PGCE audits like this  or this can be quite vague and unhelpful. Rating degrees of confidence with teaching Victorian literature, for instance, is not the same as auditing the books I have read on the subject or posing questions that pinpoint the concepts or historical details I know. This kind of audit is, I would argue, much more helpful for identifying gaps in knowledge or for throwing up important misconceptions.

  1. Lesson Study

Whilst Lesson Study is often conducted by teachers from across a range of different subject areas, in many respects it makes more sense for three teachers from the same subject to get together to investigate a subject-specific research enquiry question. Peter Dudley, one of the architects of introducing this form of professional development activity into the country, certainly sees its benefits. Writing about the ‘learning points’ of groups working on pedagogical content knowledge, he notes how:

…LS group members are held [to account] by the level of detail required in their planning and analysis discussions ([which] forces even tiny difference of view about practice or content to become exposed.

Lesson Study: Professional Learning for Our Time

If you have not yet looked into lesson study, this document is a great introduction into the format and how to implement it into your school. The Teacher Development Trust and their Network of schools across the country provide considerable guidance and ongoing support with implementing Lesson Study as part of an annual membership. I really cannot recommend membership to the TDT enough.

  1. Wider reading

Conducting wider reading or research takes time. Reading books, articles, reports and websites or blogs should therefore be seen as an entirely legitimate and justifiable professional learning activity. It may be that time is required to read a set text, or research recent developments in a subject area. Departments could pay for membership of their professional body and, as a result, receive publications and journals containing valuable advice, links and networking opportunities. Academic and specialist journals are also available online and local universities often have subscriptions and electronic access to periodicals. I wonder how many departments meet to discuss the ideas in a chapter from a text book, or share their thoughts around a poem. These may seem like frivolous activities, but eat up a lot of teachers’ time outside of school, and collaborative discussions such as these can help fuel debate, identify student misconceptions and lead to a shared approach to explaining difficult concepts to children.

  1. Online courses

Online seminar courses and programmes offer an excellent way for teachers to connect with professional learning communities, including some of the most prestigious university departments and academics in the world. There are a number of different online courses, which are perfect for matching up subject specific needs with personalised learning programmes. Many of the courses are free and those that do charge are relatively inexpensive given the quantity and quality of the material provided. It would be entirely possible for both individuals and small groups of teachers to follow the same online programme, or listen and discuss a particular lecture. Mark Miller has written a good post about how he listens to a lot of wider reading on his way to work in the car.

  1. University links

As Michael Young illustrates so well in Knowledge and the Future School, It is important for subject disciplines to stay connected with their learned communities. It is these communities, namely university departments, subject associations and professional bodies, that link classroom practice to current university research and help make sure that teachers have access to cutting edge insights into their subjects and the ways in which they these can be taught. These connections can take different forms according to the nature of the subject, but in each case they help keep teachers abreast of current developments in their field, which, in turn, make sure that students’ learning is at the forefront of knowledge both past and present. It should be perfectly acceptable for teachers or members of a department to use department or INSET time to visit a university library and research information unavailable elsewhere.

  1. Visits, exhibitions and public lectures

Visits to exhibitions, galleries or museums are often the only way for teachers to develop aspects of their subject expertise, perhaps by seeing important works first hand or learning about how an idea, style or period is represented in different formats. Public lectures by leading academics or subject experts are also a useful means of enhancing professional knowledge. Whilst it is more economical and desirable for speakers to speak to entire departments, this is not always be possible to arrange. This post by Harry Fletcher-Wood goes into more detail about why these kinds of visits are an important part of staff development.

  1. School collaboration

The same principles of external and local collaboration should be encouraged across networks of local schools. It may well be the case that individuals or whole departments in nearby schools and sixth form colleges have specific expertise that can be utilised for the benefit of all. As with the harnessing of university expertise, local teacher knowledge and understanding can be purchased or shared as part of a reciprocal arrangement. This could take the form of developing subject knowledge, or sharing specific insights and approaches gained from individuals working closely with examination boards or subject associations. In some instances, particularly in small similar departments and faculties, it may be beneficial to pair up colleagues with similar training needs for collaborative work.

  1. Leverage coaching

If you are lucky enough to have lesson observation equipment like IRIS Connect, then you have a fantastic tool that can help you to develop a shared understand of effective subject pedagogy. There are two main applications of the lesson observation equipment that can make a difference in supporting a department’s work on developing their understanding of effective subject pedagogy. The first is to develop a bank of masterclass videos illustrating different pedagogical techniques, contextualised within the subject and produced by members of the department. The group facility on IRIS Connect is a fantastic way to discuss points of teaching and keeping examples for posterity, such as an optimal explanation of tragedy for use with future trainees. Lesson observation equipment, such as the Discovery Kit option of IRIS, provides the ideal means for subject-specific coaching: short leverage coaching sessions could be a regular feature of departmental time. These again from Harry Fletcher-Wood are a wonderful primer on the methodology.

  1. Subject specific external providers

There are a number of providers of subject-specific training courses and development opportunities. Below is a short list of some of the main providers of subject-specific training. Departments may wish to invite teachers who have been on external training to feedback to the rest of the department, or to colleagues who would benefit from the information or approaches shared. This acts as a further layer of professional development. Subject professional associations offer another potential way of finding out about high quality subject-specific professional development opportunities. Often the website or professional journals of these associations provide details of current courses on offer and discounts for members are available.

Some providers of subject specific knowledge and pedagogy:

  • SSAT


  • The Prince’s Teaching Institute


  • Science Learning Network


I have written elsewhere of the impact of reviewing student learning as whole department activity, either as part of a learning review or joint planning and assessment via a collaborative teaching cycle. Both of these are great subject-specific development activities, which I hope to write about again in the future.

Here is a useful link to a list of subject associations.

Thanks for reading.


Appraisal: down but maybe not quite out!


So, it’s that time of the school year when teachers dust off their performance management paperwork, remind themselves of the targets set 12 months previously, and then cobble together some ‘evidence’ to meet them. In some schools this is a routine, perfunctory process, a bit time consuming and inconvenient, but nevertheless relatively benign; in others, however, it is still a bit time consuming and inconvenient, but with a lot more additional stress, with exam performance targets under close scrutiny and pay awards in the balance. In either case, the whole process is a monumental waste of time.

In recent weeks two very different responses to the future of annual appraisal have emerged. For some, the whole process is so flawed, broken and inefficient that the only logical cause of action is to get rid of it completely. Jack Marwood’s post on the subject is also instructive here. At the other end of the spectrum are those who also see the process as flawed, broken and inefficient but not necessarily terminally so. For these, a more humane, purposeful and impactful appraisal procedure is possible – one that balances the needs of the individual teacher with the needs of the students in the school. Whilst I can certainly see the appeal of jettisoning the behemoth that is performance management, I think there is still hope: that appraisal can be done better.

Appraisal and professional growth

This week we took our first significant step towards building a better appraisal model. We believe the changes that we have introduced will over time help to develop teachers and improve the quality of teaching and learning in the school. By taking out the deeply flawed and reductive measure of exam performance, and shifting the emphasis towards disciplined self-enquiry, we have begun to see teachers setting more meaningful, focused and impactful objectives for themselves. The fact that these identified goals are then married to provision from the school professional development programme is, we think, much more rigorous and much more likely to bring about change in the classroom.

Every teacher and classroom based staff member identifies two professional learning goals – one that relates to their subject pedagogy and framed as a target; the other more enquiry based and formed as a question. Both objectives are informed by reflection into current practice coupled with anticipation of future challenge. A number of tools have been created to guide this enquiry process, which include looking at the broad range of student outcome data (assessment, book learning, survey results) as well as more evaluative teacher reflection information. The introduction of a learning journal knits the whole process together, and is where all ongoing professional development activity will be recorded, whether it is wider reading, CPD session summaries, planning ideas or reflection notes. At the review stage we want the conversation to be about lessons learned around understanding teaching and learning, not crude interrogations of decontextualised numerical data.

Perhaps the other important change to the way we are developing appraisal is giving it the time and respect that it deserves. I have written before about our new Wednesday afternoon Professional Growth programme, where we have two hours enshrined CPD every week. This structure allows us the scope to invest in getting professional learning right. Last week we set aside some of our two hour training slot to afford staff time and space to think carefully about their development and what they need to focus on to improve and make a difference to the students that they teach or support. We also used took yesterday as INSET day so that the vast majority of staff could have a sustained period of time to discuss their professional learning – to look closely at what has gone before to better plan for what lies ahead.

Screenshot 2015-10-10 09.58.24

Subject pedagogy goal

This objective is very much focused on developing an aspect of the teaching craft. It is highly specific, both in terms of the actual aspect of pedagogy identified, but also in relation to the stated student outcomes that will follow as a result of any change in teacher behaviour. Last year we introduced lesson study into the school through the fantastic Teacher Development Trust. The process of setting an enquiry question at the heart of the lesson study model greatly informed the way we are framing subject pedagogy targets. We want to get much better at concentrating our efforts where they are most required and these kinds of focused goals do just that, as well help us to measure the impact of our professional development programme on student outcomes by evaluating the impact of individual training plans and looking at the cumulative effect of those plans across the whole school.

Screenshot 2015-10-10 09.55.15

Research and Enquiry Question

Unlike the subject pedagogy goal, which focuses more on improvements to the art of teaching, the enquiry question is geared towards reaching a better understanding of student learning. The school has three main focuses in relation to better understanding how students learn: metacognition, short and long-term memory and feedback. Enquiry questions are set in light of one of these three overarching themes and reflect the convergence of individual teacher need and whole school priority. The theme inherent in the question determines the learning community that the teacher is part for the rest of the year – an iterative process that begins with a research overview, wider reading and group discussion before moving towards collaborative planning and individual on-going enquiry supported by a lead learner. Accountability is not so much about providing a definitive answer to the question, but rather demonstrating a definitive sense that the question has prompted deeper understanding of the underlying issues and how they might be addressed.

Screenshot 2015-10-10 09.55.32

This is by no means a perfect model – far from it. It will obviously take a few years to refine the process, and we must make sure that we continue to provide the time necessary throughout the year for meaningful conversations about the impact of the professional learning on what happens in the classroom. Gone must go the days of meeting once a year to set crude performance targets that everyone forgets about until 12 months down the line. We are already thinking about affording the interim review the same status as the annual review by giving over another INSET day to evaluate progress and adjust development plans accordingly.

Appraisal directly linked to unreliable performance outcomes does not work – it breeds a culture of fear and inertia, when what we want is continual professional learning that leads to one or two informed intentional changes aimed where the need is the greatest. We hope our model is moving closer in this direction.

Thanks for reading.

Enactment: turning what we know into what we do

Screenshot 2015-10-02 20.27.13

This week a wonderful distillation into the science of learning put together by the Deans for Impact programme has been shared across Twitter. It is fantastic and concise summation of a series of cognitive principles, along with some pretty direct and helpful guidance about the application of these principles in the classroom.

It really is a pretty fantastic little read – incredibly helpful and extremely practical, so much so that both David Didau and Nick Rose write short pieces extolling its virtues to their followers. David even went so far as to demand his readers ‘Do please read and share as widely as possible’ as ‘this document ought to be distributed to every teacher in the UK.’

I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment and for a brief moment I thought about getting the paper copied it and put into every teacher’s and classroom support staff member’s pigeon hole come Monday morning. It certainly is tempting. The problem, however, is that this would probably be a waste of time and money – unlikely to make any real difference.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for getting the findings of research findings into the hands of busy teachers in as easy and accessible manner as possible. Many schools do this very well. At Durrington Andy Tharby puts up research summaries in the toilets, and Alex Quiqley at Huntington emails out what is essential fairly complex revision strategy guidance in helpful digestible formats.

I very much like easy wins like these, and I try to do them myself in my own school, though probably not quite so well as those mentioned above. Whether they actually make any difference, however, I am not so sure about. I doubt it. As many better than me have expressed on numerous occasions before, there is a big difference between knowing about something and doing something about it: between understanding and familirisation to faithful enactment.

This failure to translate knowledge into practice usually boils down to lack of time and inadequate training. You need enough quality professional development to properly understand what is worth trying to implement in your classroom, and enough time and ongoing support from knowledgable colleagues to properly reflect upon its success and to refine the approach if necessary. These are ultimately some of the major themes from the Teacher Development Trust’s recent report into effective forms of professional learning.

I’m lucky that this year we have taken the decision to close our school early on a Wednesday afternoon and to have two hours of dedicated professional learning per week. This will certainly help with the time issue and has created a framework in which we can build purposeful and iterative development activities. There is much that we are doing on these afternoons, which I hope to blog about in the coming weeks and months. Suffice to say for now that we have built a programme that should provide the time and ongoing training that will make informed changes to teaching and learning, such as those summarised in the Deans for Impact report, much more likely.

But even though I believe our professional learning activities will make a big difference towards successful enactment of research findings, I suspect that this may still not be enough. To this end, we have developed two approaches that we think will help to support the standard and impact of professional learning, and help to make sure that more of what we know about the science of learning translates into classroom practice. They obviously wont guarantee enacted change, but perhaps they will act as more of a helpful nudge than a photocopied report from a largely unknown American organisation placed with the best of intentions in staff pigeonholes.

The first of these approaches is an agreed set principles of learning, which we have made the basis of the way that we talk about teaching and learning across the school, whether in staff training sessions, meetings or, more generally, in one to one conversations about learning. We call them, rather unimaginatively, our principles of learning, and their existence has really given us a shared understanding of what we want our teaching to be considering when they plan their lessons and how we want them to shape the learning experiences of our students.

Screenshot 2015-10-02 20.26.57

The second approach is more of a steer, and has proven to be a really useful tool for key stage co-ordinaters and head of department in their planning. In light of the sheer volume of curriculum changes, we took the decision to introduce a medium scheme of work template common to all subjects and key stages. This is not so much about determining what or how teachers teach their lessons, but rather a way of helping departments to make sure that our agreed principles of learning – such as the benefits of spacing, or the needs to use regular low stakes assessment – are part of the fabric of their enacted curriculum: that all students benefit from what we know about the science of learning.

Screenshot 2015-10-02 20.26.18

Obviously, our principles of learning and standardised medium term planning templates will not guarantee that teachers are introducing desirable difficulties into their teaching, presenting students with multiple interactions with new learning or even providing all students with powerful foundational knowledge. But together with high quality professional learning (more on this to come) and more time to think, plan, reflect and collaborate, we hope that teachers will think a little more carefully about what and how they will teach and that our students will learn in ways that are more likely to make a difference to their long term understanding.

Anyway, that’s the hope!

Thanks for reading.