Primary Science Quality Mark hub leader training part two SLC London 20 th September 2011

Programme Sharing feedback PSQM website Break Supporting reflective practice Lunch 1.15 Compiling a PSQM submission 2.45 Autumn schools’ training session 3.00 Recruitment, deadlines etc 3.15 Further questions 3.30Close

Sharing feedback Recruitment 2.Submission feedback 3.Evaluation Award events 5.Research 6.Administration and management 7.Over to you

Recruitment -Summer term 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

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/UH 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

PSQM website Next steps Uploaded resources

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 – 1 Thoughtful 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 – 2 writing 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 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 programme 9.30 How has it gone so far? Sharing action plans Break Using the web site Developing reflective practice Lunch 1.15 Writing a reflection 1.45 Types of evidence 2.30Next steps for you 3.15Close

Recruitment and deadlines April 30 th May 2012June 12End July 12Sept 12End Sept 2012 Around half term Oct 12 Submission deadline April 2011 cohort Review submission April 2011 cohort Outcomes notified April starts Submission deadline Sept 2011 cohort Review submission Sept 2011 cohort Notify September 2011 cohort Award events for both cohorts

Any further questions?