Primary first 12

PrimaryFirst

“I shape the future – I teach”

National Association for Primary Education

The journal for primary schools Issue 12 £5.00

World ClassMusic Education

A natural and intuitive approach, based on hands-onmusic-making, that is accessible, cross-cultural and completely inclusive. It's also brilliantly cost-effective.

See significant results in just one term and a major transformation in the first year

Everyone is a musician - all it takes is the right approach

Every pupil will:• Learn to play a musical instrument• Play and perform in a musical ensemble• Effortlessly cover the music syllabus

Any school can:• Become musically self-sufficient• Develop a vibrant musical culture• Start to make an impact in the community

Drums for Schools specialize in AfricanDrumming, Brazilian Samba, IndonesianGamelan, Caribbean Steel Pans, World Percussion and Taiko Drumming. Award-winning instrument packs, brilliantly practical teaching guides, expert onlinesupport and CPD training for teachers.

CALL NOW FOR INFO PACK

A serious music resource that's accessibleto teachers and pupils, that covers thesyllabus in an enjoyable way and thatgives everyone involved the extra benefits that come from ensemble playing and performance. Music Co-ordinator, Burton Joyce Primary School

‘‘‘‘

%0115 931 4513www.drumsforschools.co.uk

DFS Ad 280x215 Jul13_Layout 1 10/07/2013 10:05 Page 1

World ClassMusic Education

A natural and intuitive approach, based on hands-onmusic-making, that is accessible, cross-cultural and completely inclusive. It's also brilliantly cost-effective.

See significant results in just one term and a major transformation in the first year

Everyone is a musician - all it takes is the right approach

Every pupil will:• Learn to play a musical instrument• Play and perform in a musical ensemble• Effortlessly cover the music syllabus

Any school can:• Become musically self-sufficient• Develop a vibrant musical culture• Start to make an impact in the community

Drums for Schools specialize in AfricanDrumming, Brazilian Samba, IndonesianGamelan, Caribbean Steel Pans, World Percussion and Taiko Drumming. Award-winning instrument packs, brilliantly practical teaching guides, expert onlinesupport and CPD training for teachers.

CALL NOW FOR INFO PACK

A serious music resource that's accessibleto teachers and pupils, that covers thesyllabus in an enjoyable way and thatgives everyone involved the extra benefits that come from ensemble playing and performance. Music Co-ordinator, Burton Joyce Primary School

‘‘‘‘

%0115 931 4513www.drumsforschools.co.uk

DFS Ad 280x215 Jul13_Layout 1 10/07/2013 10:05 Page 1

Contents

About usEditorial

John Coe

Editorial BoardPeter Cansell, Stuart Swann, Robert Young

Primary First magazine is published three times per year by the National Association for Primary Education.

Primary First, 57 Britannia Way, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS14 9UYTel. 01543 257257, Fax. 01543 258258, Email. [email protected]

©Primary First 2015No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted in any form or by any means without the express written permission of the publisher. Whilst every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the editorial content the publisher cannot be held responsible for errors or omissions. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the publisher.

04 Editorial

05 Why Stories by Hilary Cooper

08 Peter Cansell asks a fundamental question

10 Terry Wrigley: Bullying by numbers

14 Primary specialist or subject specialist? That is the question

18 Lauren Huntington reports successful practice

22 A Critique of Synthetic Phonics by Margaret Clark

28 A fired up Robin Alexander speaks for the profession

31 Collaboration: an alternative to academies

36 Lynn Knapp reflects on her leadership role

38 Book reviews

39 Professor Leonard Marsh - an obituary

03

“When the education given in a school is dominated by periodical examination on a prescribed syllabus, suppression of the child’s natural activities becomes the central feature of the teacher’s programme. In such a school the child is not allowed to do anything which the teacher can possibly do for him.”

“Reading, writing and arithmetic are means to ends beyond themselves, ends which are constantly presenting themselves to the children.” The editor is indebted to our member, Colin Richards, for the above words written by Edmond Holmes in 1911.

From time to time readers may look up from an article

in Primary First and think “I don’t agree with that at all”.

And a reader who belongs to the National Association for

Primary Education may feel a touch aggrieved if the article

is out of line with NAPE’s views trenchantly voiced as we

campaign on behalf of primary education.

The disclaimer printed inside the front cover of every issue

makes it clear that the views expressed in the journal

are not necessarily those of the publisher. It is reasonable

though to expect that our writers’ views are rooted broadly

within one side of the educational spectrum which has the

former Secretary of State, Michael Gove at one end and

our president, Tim Brighouse, at the other. That said, there

is much room for debate on our side and Primary First is

totally committed to the encouragement of debate among

professional teachers as we struggle to break free from the

subservient role which government prefers for us.

So what should a disagreeing reader do once the red

mist has subsided? The answer is --- write to the Editorial

Board or, even better, offer to write an article which sets

out a contrary view. We will be delighted to publish you,

the more the merrier. Through forthright debate we hope

to shape happy and fulfilling primary education for more

young children, their parents and their teachers.

In this issue are two articles penned by practitioners who

describe exciting and successful work at their schools. Yet

both writers have felt the need to validate their teaching

by reference to official measures of “progress” You can

guess that when the editor read the first drafts his red

pencil was hovering over the page. There is absolutely

no need to validate excellent teaching by reference to

snapshots of test performance. But the red pencil did not

strike because however much we campaign against the

current superficial view of ‘progress’ the reality which faces

every primary school is that the government measure

of progress, limited and flawed as it is, is the measure

which at present leads to judgements about the entire

range of a school’s life and work. So Primary First offers a

truthful reality while our association continues to work for

enlightenment in the future.

Editorial

PrimaryFirst

0505

Why stories? by Hilary Cooper

Which stories? Fairy stories

Children need, eventually, to know that history is based on sources, traces of the past which remain, but first they must, gradually, cross the bridge between fantasy and reality. Because fairy stories are often not logical they help children to examine the relationship between fantasy and reality. One five-year-old, asked if he thought that Jack and the Beanstalk was a true story, said that the giant was not real because he knew there were no giants but he thought that Jack’s mother was real, ‘because my mum talks to me

During the Early Years and Foundation Stage children should listen to stories, ask how and why and talk about the past (DfE 2012). Young children are comfortable with stories.

Through stories children extend their knowledge. They create new worlds through the powers of imagination. Stories allow children to move from the present into other worlds, to explore emotion, intention, behaviour, conflicts, loves, hatreds, loyalties and complex motives beyond their experience. Stories recount events in sequence, transmit information, and introduce new vocabulary. Stories help children to think critically, to question and discuss ideas which help them begin to understand the past.

www.history.org.uk/file_downloadphp?ts=1380287768&id=12897

06

PrimaryFirst

like that’! By the age of six, many children can be quite confident in sorting books into ‘reality’ and ‘fantasy’. Fairy stories provide the opportunity to talk about motives, about good and evil and the behaviour of all sorts of different people, wise, foolish, good, evil, rich and poor.

And they are illustrated with pictures of past times: carriages, windmills, goose-girls, and castles…

www.history.org.uk/file_download.php?ts=1204285674&id=280

Different versions of fairy stories

There are many versions of fairy stories written for a modern audience. Can children understand that these are different versions of the same events, not different stories; for example Little Red Riding Hood told from the wolf’s perspective (Shaskan, 2012) or the wolf’s version of The Three Little Pigs (Trizidas and Oxenbury, 2003)? The Barefoot Book of Fairy Tales (Doyle, 2006) contains stories from around the world.

Myths, folk tales and legends

Myths are fictitious stories involving supernatural people, actions and events. Legends and folk tales are folk memories of events handed down orally.

When children begin to distinguish between what may be real and what may be fantasy in fairy stories they will relish a fresh challenge in understanding the dual role of fantasy and reality in myths, legends and folk tales because they are full of metaphor, symbol and imagery in which ‘pretend’ and reality interact. By questioning traditional stories children try to resolve issues, speculate and hypothesise about behaviour and beliefs. Myths and folk tales from Africa, the Caribbean, India and China encourage children to understand cultures, values and attitudes other than their own. Folk tales deal with values and beliefs, heroism, compassion, hopes and fears, jealousy, betrayal and rough justice in ways that young children can engage with. Children can compare different versions of the same tale.

www.history.org.uk/file_download.php?ts=1308570845&id=8485www.history.org.uk/file_download.php?ts=1204285717&id=579

Fictional Stories about growth, change

Children can relate their own experiences to stories such as When I was Little: a Four Year Old’s Memoir of her Youth (Curtis, 1995), I’m a Big Brother (Cole, 2010) or Grandpa (Burningham, 2002). Such stories are a wonderful way of making children aware of changes over time in their own lives and families.

www.history.org.uk/file_download.php?ts=1204285674&id=280

Oral stories

Asking older people to tell their own stories about when they were small, and about life before they were born, can illustrate time and change in personal ways accessible to the youngest children. Different grannies and granddads will tell their different stories, reflecting the rich variety of human experiences in a community. Or oral stories might be eye-witnesses’ accounts of events.www.history.org.uk/file_download.php?ts=1204285675&id=286

Fictional stories about the past

These provide another opportunity for children to reason, based on their own experience and knowledge. These five-year-olds are discussing Bill and Pete go Down the Nile (de Paolo, 1988). Aaron knew ‘the sphinx and the pyramids are true’ because he had seen them on television and in pictures. Theo agreed. He had learnt about them from his mum. So, as Ayodele concluded: ‘parts are about real things, but crocodiles and birds can’t talk’.

True historical stories Is the story of Grace Darling true? Throughout the story these four-and five-year-olds rowed the boat, or made sound effects for the storm. Afterwards most of them said that they thought it was a true story, but had difficulty saying why. But Katie did not agree. She reasoned that ‘The fishermen wouldn’t have gone out in a storm. Nor would Grace. It was dangerous and her Daddy would have gone on his own. My Daddy wouldn’t take me out in a storm.’

www.history.org.uk/file_downloadphp?ts=1204285696&id=451www.history.org.uk/file_download.php?ts=1204285696&id=454www.history.org.uk/file_download.php?ts=1204285669&id=236

Talking about stories To engage children in discussing stories teachers need to ask questions, to allow children to express their different ideas, listen to each other and reflect and also to ask their own questions (see Table 1). It is not the accuracy of each child’s ideas that is important but the reasoning used to support them and maybe a change in thinking at the end of a discussion. The table shows examples of questions and of children’s answers.

If you want to see more Historical Association:

E-CPD Storytelling, E-CPD History in the Foundation Stage and Key Stage 1.

07

Storytelling and Discussion Key Stage 1 Exemplars: Columbus the Explorer; Magellan at Key Stage 1

Some responses from 4–5-year-olds

‘If I’ve heard of the people, like Robin Hood, I know it’s true. Also if people are wearing old clothes.’

‘I’d know it was true if it’s about something I know – like dinosaurs.’ ‘You think if people can do things or not.’

Discussing a story about Princess VictoriaTheo thought that ‘the king was old, like my granddad. He’s 70 and he’s got a stick.’ But he decided the king lived before his granddad because, ‘The coach is from the olden days, like in cowboys. I saw a coach like that on tele. You don’t get cowboys I saw a coach like that on tele. You don’t get cowboys now – only on tele. They lived about 200 years ago. Also the globe in the picture is different from my teacher’s globe.’

Five-year-olds described, with relish, the pictures in a story about castles: ‘That’s a GARGOYLE; And that’s the PORTCULLIS.’Another group enjoyed explaining that Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle was a WASHERWOMAN and was an EXCELLENT CLEAR STARCHER.‘The sphinx is very old but it looks new because it has been cleaned. I saw a picture about it on tele.’

Discussing why Old Boney wanted to attack England (Garland, Seeing Red, 1996): ‘He wanted power; to be king of England, take land, make English soldiers fight for him, get hold of money.’

Oral history; WWI: Mrs W lived in London. Mrs I lived in rural Scotland, ‘They both lived in WWI. Why didn’t Mrs Wilkinson say all about the war like Mrs Isaacs did?’ ‘Because they both lived in different countries…’

Possible questions

How do you know if a story from a long time ago is true?

Do you think this really happened? Why do you think that?

Time questions

Sequence: What do you think will happen next? What happened next? Who can tell me the story?

Cause, effect: Why do you think that happened? Similarity, difference, then, now:Do we have these (do this, wear this) today? Why not? What do we have today instead?

Vocabulary

What do you think this is? How do you know? Has anyone else ever seen one? Where? What do you think it is for? How do you think it works? Who do you think used it?

Time language:Before, after, now, then, old, newPerhaps..probably…

Motives

Why do you think s/he did (said) this?

Interpretations

Are these stories/accounts, pictures the same? Why? Why not?

Thanks are due to the Historical Association for permission to reprint this important article which was first published in the HA journal, Primary History.

08

PrimaryFirst

There is some confusion about who is in charge of education. Recent announcements suggest that when things are going well, this is the result of excellent management from the very top, but when things go wrong it is those at the bottom who are to blame. This is nothing new. It echoes the old Billy Bennett chorus “It’s the same the whole world over”.But who really is in charge? This throws up further questions: Who would we like to be in charge? Does anyone in school believe that recent Ministers have been good for education in its broadest sense? Ofsted have the arsenal to determine failure on their limited metrics but where is the recognition of education being something which is greater than what happens in one school on one day? That education is more than just going to school? Is there a Local Authority remaining who are able to claim they can carry out all their statutory responsibilities for educating the children in their area, when they have been so emasculated by the introduction of Academies, Free Schools and massive limitations on their ability to build new schools? I suspect not. Those who become sponsors of academies are required to be responsible for the management of their own schools, but there is no recognition of society’s larger responsibility to truly educate all of

our children. Little recognition of the need for collaboration. The need to see beyond the silo.

A worrying trend for many Headteachers is the increasing pressure on Governors to make operational (day-to-day) decisions, so that they will not be blamed by Ofsted when the exam results are not as good as they would have been, had the government not moved the goalposts. I do wonder what their fear is, I am not aware of any school governor in recent years who has been arrested or cast out as a social pariah because the children in their school didn’t achieve highly enough in exams. Relax governors, let the Headteacher take the strain, your role is to oversee the strategic aims of the school.

That Billy Bennett song was popular with the armed forces during both World Wars and – at a time when we are all conscious of the effects of war – it led me to consider the use of arms in education.

Any good headteacher uses an entire industry of arms on a daily basis:

• The arms to put round shoulders, of staff as well as children and occasionally parents.

• The arms to reach into a toilet and retrieve a lost polo shirt

• The arms to cross to show how offended one can be by a child misbehaving

• The arms to separate two fighting children

They need to use all these arms and more. But if a Head can only focus on performance in Maths and English (because that’s the data which will drive the forthcoming no-notice inspection) then those arms will be fully employed covering various parts of

the anatomy. Like a footballer cowering behind a temporary white line.

In some countries this talk of arms might be assumed to be a reference to guns on campus. A problem about which Ofsted are particularly concerned at the moment, ensuring that schools jump

through hoops regarding security and requiring visitors to do something similar. I would suggest that The Cellist of Sarajevo becomes required reading for all inspectors, so that they are able to recognise the futility of such an approach. When the Year 6 child on doorbell-duty asks who it is, because the office staff are at lunch, to whom will they refuse access? Perhaps announcing oneself as a terrorist or gunman, might cause some hesitation? But a soldier would presumably be admitted? Has it been

The battle for a better education: Who’s in charge? by Peter Cansell

It’s time to go back to a view of education that says children are important.

09

The battle for a better education: Who’s in charge? by Peter Cansell

considered that a sniper in the nearby flats doesn’t need to ring the doorbell for access? This kind of narrow focus on specific issues ignores the wider topics of education, but is the kind of micro-management perpetuated by those who appear to be at the top.

One might expect that those individuals who came into education to make a difference and eventually believed they could do that by becoming a headteacher, have some influence in the running of education, but how many are offered, or take that opportunity?

This is not to criticise any Heads who see their function as keeping their head below the parapet and focussing on their own bailiwick, but this approach also causes its own difficulties, with Heads feeling constantly under pressure and often undermined by all those previously mentioned. Perhaps there needs to be an education campaign called “Keep Your Head”.

It’s time to go back to a view of education that says children are important. That they should have a say in their learning. That they, and we, should enjoy that experience. That parents should be welcome in school – to break down those barriers that they might carry in front of them. That teachers should have the time to talk to each other about children and learning, to match the success evidenced by John Hattie’s work over many years. That a knowledge of child development is important.

How often do parents consult teachers about their children’s progress? Are level descriptors, grades, or examination results ever the best way of understanding children? Similarly the values that we hold are more than those labelled “British”. Values Education is an international approach that believes that creativity is important and gives significant value to all that we do in schools and in life. Pioneered by Neil Hawkes, Real Values Education proponents must feel insulted by the recent simplistic government edicts, which manage to isolate sectors of society, rather than including them. Which tell us that every child no longer matters. Which perpetuate

divisiveness in our society and undermine the effects of a broad based education. Who are the originators of these perverse ideas? Boyson? Woodhead? Thatcher? Gove? Do we really want our children’s education to be their miserable legacy?

Parents want their child to enjoy going to school. Children want that to be the case. Teachers want that for the children (and for themselves).

What Headteacher wouldn’t like to smile at what’s happening in school every day? What governor wouldn’t want to see the Headteacher in charge of a happy school? What Prime Minister wouldn’t want the population to be measurably happier?

We’ve always known that as educators, no matter our position, we wield enormous power over the lives of those we teach. We should also recognise that we can take control of more of this destiny than we think. As we are charged with a child’s education, we are the ones temporarily in charge of that part of their life.

Maybe we could start to better harness the power of education for all. Make the changes ourselves to help broaden the perspectives of those at the top. Maybe we can arm ourselves to be the ones to lead that charge. Maybe we could even start to inspect for happiness in schools.

Perhaps Ofsted could even be kept happy doing that!

Peter Cansell is the former Head of Harwell Primary School. He is Chair of the National Network of Chairs of Headteacher Groups and is Director of the Oxford School of Thought.

PrimaryFirst

10

Statistics can be a serious tool of critical analysis, by providing a graphic overview of a situation. However they can also distort reality by reducing educational processes - and children themselves - to numerical data: the only thing that matters is what can be counted.

There is widespread international concern among education researchers about ‘governance by numbers’ – the excessive reliance on statistical calculations to evaluate learning and schools and to generate policy, which leads to an anaemic view of education.

In England ‘governance by numbers’ is combined with top-down surveillance (Ofsted, performance pay, top-down lesson observations) to induce fear and panic. Statistical calculations compare schools, often unfairly, while teachers are kept in a permanent state of anxiety by the risk of inspection and performance review - a toxic mix.

Within this system built on fear, headteachers made anxious about the possibility of a poor year’s results or a negative Ofsted feel obliged to create the impression of doing everything possible to boost performance. Such attempts to Ofsted-proof the school can lead to impossible workload demands. It is no surprise, then, that teachers’ working hours have gone through the roof because of the time spent preparing and assessing – or rather showing that you are. In some schools teachers have been expected

to write out and file every lesson plan, provide proof of marking in a particular way, and keep copious records.

This climate of fear has become known as performativity:

the uncertainty and instability of being judged in different ways, by different means, through different agents; the ‘bringing off’ of performances – the flow of changing demands, expectations and indicators that make us continually accountable and constantly recorded… It is a recipe for ontological insecurity... how will we measure up?

We now operate within a baffling array of figures, performance indicators, comparisons and competitions – in such a way that the contentments of stability are increasingly elusive, purposes are contradictory, motivations blurred and self worth slippery...

Here then is guilt, uncertainty, instability, and the emergence of a new subjectivity – a new kind of teacher. [1]

Workload

When heads feel the need to prove they are running a ‘tight ship’, this creates massive increases in teachers’ workload. In 2010 primary teachers were working an average of 50 hours a week; they are now working 59. Teachers spend nearly 11 hours preparing and 10 hours assessing and reporting. An extra 3-4 hours are spent on ‘general administration’, most of which is also

linked to preparation or assessment (eg organising resources, keeping records).

These figures come from the DfE’s own surveys [2]. Such hours are clearly unsustainable and detrimental to professional quality. The increase is linked to performativity pressures, not genuine school improvement.

However, even this presentation of the data is less than honest. The DfE report claims that 80% of these hours are during the school day. In fact, this is based on the assumption of reaching school by 8 a.m. and leaving at 6 p.m. This has changed from an assumed 8.30 arrival in earlier surveys – a neat sleight of hand. In reality though, many teachers have to

collect their own children around 5 and give them active attention till 8. The only way they can work such long hours is to put in 3 hours after the kids are in bed on weekdays and another 7 hours on Saturday or Sunday. It

seems being a good teacher is no longer compatible with being a good parent!

Ofsted have at last responded to union pressure and clarified [3] that they no longer expect to see individual lesson plans, nor ‘unnecessary written dialogue between teachers and pupils in exercise books’. This is a relief, but actually it is Ofsted itself which generates the fear, and primary teacher Jack Marwood [4] claims that practices such as ‘triple marking’ have continued.

Bullying by numbersby Terry Wrigley

It seems being a good teacher is no longer compatible with being a good parent!

Using data to speak back to power

This article reviews some of the ways in which statistical data is misused. As well as taking attention away from important aspects of education such as personal development and citizenship, the statistics are often used dishonestly to create a distorted impression, putting undue pressure on teachers. They are also used to prop up the dysfunctional and unreliable Ofsted system by providing an illusion of mathematical objectivity.

Teachers need to speak back to power, and one useful tool is to point to flaws in the use of data. At the same time we should not neglect the importance of thinking about how ‘governance by numbers’ is reductionist and limits education itself.

Similar schools and floor targets

School Effectiveness is a research paradigm which attempts to compare schools with one another in terms of measurable outcomes, and then to ascertain by statistical means what makes some schools more ‘effective’. Its overreliance on what can be quantified has led to sharp criticism.

However, its researchers have generally accepted the need to compare like with like, and that some schools are working in more challenging circumstances than others. They soon began to use data such as the percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals (FSM) in order to match schools. The FSM data is easily available, but it is a clumsy ‘proxy indicator’ of the extent of poverty in an area, and does not take into account parents’ occupations or educational levels. It does not reflect the psychological impact of chronic unemployment or living in areas blighted by de-industrialisation. Two schools might both have 25% FSM, but if one also has 25% of parents in graduate occupations – a bipolar distribution – its results are likely to be higher.

So comparisons based on FSM can be misleading, but they are better than nothing. It was inexcusable, therefore, for Gordon Brown’s Labour government to invent the ‘floor target’ – a minimum percentage of pupils who had to reach a certain level regardless of the challenges within its student population. This was a manifest injustice, and was used to pick off schools for forced academisation. The hurdle has been raised year after year to catch more schools.

The other criterion, which may appear fairer, is ‘value added’ i.e. judging schools according to whether their

pupils have made sufficient progress in English and Maths. For secondary schools, it is based on the myth that a Level 3 child at KS2 should normally obtain a D at GCSE, a Level 4 should get a C, and a Level 5 should reach a B – i.e. ‘three levels of progress’.

The fairness of this method is also an illusion since it is much harder to make ‘three levels of progress’ from the lower levels at KS2. In maths, only 33% do so from Level 3, 70% from Level 4, and 81% from Level 5. The unfairness is even greater if we consider sub-levels: only 25% of L3c obtain a grade C, while 96% of L5a obtain a B. The range is less in English, but still huge: 40% to 99%. [5]

This puts intolerable pressures on teachers in disadvantaged areas. It can affect their pay and job security and expose them to more oppressive supervision. It can lead to a narrower, more mechanistic style of teaching, and a loss of pupil motivation, since teachers are driven towards teaching to the test. Schools with higher attaining entrants tend to escape this kind of pressure.

Ofsted and the ‘objectivity’ of performance data

Ofsted supposedly regards pupil progress as a major criterion for making judgements, but it now appears that prior attainment rather than progress is the decisive factor, at least according to the evidence for the secondary phase. (Does anyone have data for primary?) In selective areas, 76% of grammar schools are deemed Outstanding but only 13% of secondary moderns. Among comprehensive schools, almost all schools with above average prior attainment are judged Good or Outstanding, while those with low prior attainment are at great risk of negative judgements. [6]

Ofsted provides its inspection teams with mountains of data, but this creates only the illusion of fairness and objectivity, not its substance. Certainly Ofsted’s own quality control systems are about consistency, not truth i.e. the art of not getting caught out.

The gap

There are many reasons why the average outcomes of young people growing up in poverty are lower than for other students. What is inexcusable is the attempt by Coalition ministers, whose policies actively increase child poverty, to blame teachers for ‘the gap’. The extent of child poverty across Britain is scandalous, and this has a complex effect on young people’s wellbeing, confidence and achievement.

Despite all the accountability pressures placed upon

11

PrimaryFirst

12

schools, the gap between pupils with FSM entitlement and the rest is still substantial – currently 18 percentage points difference for reaching expected levels in all of reading, writing and maths. The Government’s answer is to exploit the statistics to show that some schools appear to have closed the gap, so that they can then blame other schools and tell teachers they need to work harder. The other magic answer, of course, is privatisation: label the school a failure and hand it over to an academy chain.

In fact some recent research by Ofsted itself [7] shows the fallacy of these bullying responses. In both primary and secondary schools, the gap is just as large in schools judged Outstanding or Good, even though both FSM and non-FSM achieve higher (p53)

This is not to suggest we cannot learn lessons from some exceptional schools, including how they carry through a commitment to social justice. However the statistical data does not support the political blame-game.

One of the consequences of ‘governance by numbers’ is a reliance on specific countable categories, so that young people are no longer considered as individuals with real narratives and situations, but as bundles of pathologies: ‘a FSM white-British male with SEN’. ‘Pupil Premium pupils’ are being labelled, listed, displayed and in some schools even taught separately. The labels create the illusion of teachers understanding something of the individual child’s life, but actually make it more difficult to engage with the complex reality.

Pupil Premium and the Toolkit

Finally, governance by numbers now involves the offer of quick-fix remedies to low attainment, in the form of the Toolkit [8] published by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). The Toolkit claims to identify the cheapest and most effective interventions, but is a crude device.

Its method is based on stirring together hundreds of meta-analyses reporting on many thousands of pieces of research to measure the effectiveness of interventions. This is like claiming that a hammer is the best way to crack a nut, but without distinguishing between coconuts and peanuts, or saying whether the experiment used a sledgehammer or the inflatable plastic one that you won at the fair.

Top of the list comes something loosely called ‘Feedback’. This appears particularly cost-effective because schools

don’t have to pay for it: teachers simply stay up late marking books.

In fact, feedback can involve many different kinds of activity, some of which take up no extra time. The best feedback can involve giving a student useful tips during an activity. It is the climate of fear which has led many heads to issue instructions about how many pieces of ‘deep marking’ they must evidence each week.

This is a classic case of fear leading to knee-jerk responses based on inadequate understanding. The EEF Toolkit is actually a crude device designed to offer quick-fix remedies to low attainment, based on inappropriate statistical procedures. It claims to identify the cheapest and most effective interventions to help ‘close the gap’. It is the latest addition to England’s complex system of ‘governance by numbers’ (league tables, RAISEonline, Ofsted grades, SATs and 5 A*-C scores, floor targets etc.)

Many of the limitations are acknowledged in the Technical Appendices, and some of the differences between research studies are shown among the references, but in practice the league table format and average effects in terms of ‘months progress’ will lead to simplistic and erroneous responses.

Specifically on Feedback, the Toolkit provides some more specific references to back up its very general claims, but many of these are over 20 years old and currently unobtainable. Seven more detailed references are given, each with an ‘effect size’, but these range from .97 to .20. Which is to be believed? Summaries follow,

in highly technical language, mostly without indicating which stage or subject, what kind of learning, what kind of feedback, which countries the research took place in, and so on. Some of the sources are very critical of particular types of feedback. The EEF itself funded one experiment, but with zero effect! [8]

Meta-analyses are used in Medicine to enable researchers to complement the reading of other research, though not to substitute for it; for example, if experiments have been based on small samples, averaging the results can suggest a general trend.

But the medical literature contains serious warnings against the misuse of meta-analysis. Statisticians are warned not to mix together different treatments, types of patient or outcome measures – the ‘apples and pears’ problem. If the

It is the climate of fear which has led many heads to issue instructions about how many pieces of ‘deep marking’ they must evidence each week.

13

original results differ strongly, they are advised to highlight the difference, not provide a misleading average. [9] This is exactly what has not happened in the Toolkit, which should never have provided an average score for “Feedback” since the word has so many meanings:

‘A teacher or parent can provide corrective information, a peer can provide an alternative strategy, a book can provide information to clarify ideas, a parent can provide encouragement, and a learner can look up the answer to evaluate the correctrness of a response.’ [10]

None of the research suggests the need to overload teachers with mountains of marking. Comments on written work is one way to provide feedback, but other forms include monitoring learners during a practical process, providing judicious hints on tackling a problem, steering them to think about alternative solutions and methods, and so on.

There is nothing straightforward about implementing an intervention called ‘Feedback’. Indeed there is no generic entity called ‘feedback’ which on average adds 8 months progress!

Improving learning and enhancing achievement requires a thoughtful process of staff development, not the quick-fix solutions implied by a ‘Toolkit’. This quality of staff development is unlikely to happen in a climate of exhaustion and fear.

Other categories in this league table of ‘effective’ interventions to close the gap are equally misleading. Although a close scrutiny of the research cited for Teaching Assistants analyses the circumstances in which they can have considerable impact, this crude ‘league table’ approach, with its misleading and meaningless summary of +1 month, will inevitably trigger a damaging knee-jerk response in many schools.

Conclusion

Governance by numbers, combined with high-stakes surveillance methods, is part of a ruthless efficiency drive to squeeze more and more out of teachers in order to increase ‘human capital’ for the profit-making economy. This neoliberal claim is spurious: increasing qualifications does not create jobs and capitalism already squanders the knowledge and skills of large numbers of well qualified young people.

Bullying by numbers has a restrictive effect on education, leads to superficial learning, and is seriously damaging teachers’ lives.

Sources[1] Stephen Ball (2001) Performativities and fabrications in the education economy – towards the performative society. [2] DfE (2014) Teachers’ workload diary survey 2013: research report. [3] Ofsted inspections – clarification for schools, Oct 2014, no. 140169. https://www.teachers.org.uk/files/ofsted-inspections-clarification-for-schools.pdf[4] http://icingonthecakeblog.weebly.com/blog/the-high-cost-of-effective-feedback-the-triple-marking-fiasco[5] Henry Stewart (2013) Why 3 levels of progress is a very silly measure. Local Schools Network http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/06/why-3-levels-of-progress-is-a-very-silly-measure/ [6] Trevor Burton’s blog Eating elephants - one mouthful at a time. What’s the easiest way to a secondary Ofsted Outstanding?

http://jtbeducation.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/whats-the-easiest-way-to-a-secondary-ofsted-outstanding/ [7] Ofsted (2013) Unseen children: access and achievement 20 years on – evidence report. www.ofsted.gov.uk/accessandachievement [8] http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/[9] See for example M Russo (2007) How to review a meta-analysis. Robert Coe (It’s the effect size, stupid, 2002) makes exactly the same point: “Given two (or more) numbers, one can always calculate an average. However, if they are effect sizes from experiments that differ significantly in terms of the outcome measures used, then the result may be totally meaningless.” Unfortunately his Toolkit team seems to have missed this sound advice.[10] Ironically, this quotation comes from meta-analysis enthusiast and populariser John Hattie (Visible Learning, p174, 2009).

Terry Wrigley is Visiting Professor at the University of Northumbria and edits the international journal Improving Schools. He has written extensively on social justice, educational change, curriculum and policy. His most recent book is Living on the Edge: Rethinking Poverty, Class and Schooling. www.changingschools.org.uk

PrimaryFirst

14

Bubbles & Bar Tendersby Lynsey Melhuish

In a recent article in the Institute for Outdoor learning’s Practitioner Magazine, I introduced the concept of Learning Outside the Classroom (LOtC) - Sparkling or still? (Horizons 2014). A metaphoric phrase coined to reflect the different patterns of learning and behaviour I had witnessed in LOtC experiences….. “I can only describe the children as bubbles from a lemonade bottle that had been vigorously shaken and then opened”… I wrote this in my observation journal having spent the afternoon with a class of effervescent primary school children whilst researching for my MA in Education a few years ago.

The metaphoric ‘bubbles’ can therefore be seen to reflect the implications of the ‘sparking or still’ concept. However the research also raised issues regarding the implications and influence of ‘who’ was actually delivering the LOtC experience ie school teachers / or outdoor practitioners/specialists (eg Educational Rangers etc). In keeping with the metaphor I therefore raise the additional question – not only whether you prefer your LOtC experience with an injection of bubbles – but also, who is pouring the drinks? In other words who is the bar tender with the influence of what is being poured; the school teacher or the outdoor practitioner? With this in mind the article looks to highlight some of the key issues, implications that schools should consider when

15

organising LOtC offsite including decisions as to whether to run a LOtC activity directly or outsource to a specialist outdoor practitioner.

Regarding the metaphoric ‘bubbles’, on the particular day in question, the school I had scheduled to observe arrived late to the country park which was the location for the offsite LOtC experience. This resulted in a mêlée of activity and a rather ‘tense’ atmosphere initially, particularly with the early realisation that the ‘worksheets’ which had been so painstakingly created to link to specific curriculum objectives, had been left behind!! The looks of ‘what do we do now’ were plain to see albeit fleeting as the classic contingency procedures (teacher auto pilot) started to kick in. So a safety/logistics briefing between staff/helpers followed, whilst a coach full of children remained safe and secure…..although close to bursting point with eager anticipation. Then it happened…..the coach doors were opened and the children were literally, ‘released’ into the forest. Worksheets were forgotten and instead, sixty, over-excited, explorers, disappeared into the undergrowth (followed in hot pursuit by ample adult helpers in bright neon jackets).

For the whole of the session I observed this behaviour. Free of worksheets the children were able to ‘play’ and explore, and to observe and consume every element and to engage with every sense that nature’s classroom was exposing to them. This resulted in a dizzy, headiness, and a metaphoric ‘explosion of bubbles’ (the children) as they departed the coach (the lemonade bottle), darting through the forest, jumping on logs….jumping off logs….shaking braches, collecting pine cones, listening to rustles in the hedges, watching birds in the trees…..and so it went on….all without a worksheet. So…..questions I have been exploring more recently, focus on, how would the experience have compared IF the worksheets had been in place….and the more topical point…..does it really matter anyway? This and related questions, proved fundamental in the research and subsequent outcomes, and introduced 3 emerging themes which I feel are important for schools to consider when contemplating the organisation of LOtC offsite.

Theme 1 focuses on ‘pre-planning’ and preparation, arguably the most important aspect of planning any LOtC experience, and through the research, was seen to have the most significant effect (positively and negatively) on the actual impact / effectiveness of delivery (theme 2) and in relation to the ability to be able to effectively

monitor / evaluate and measure the impact of such a LOtC experience (theme 3). In the particular scenario described, I had met with this particular school at the ‘pre-planning’ stages for the trip, and I had a clear understanding of the learning strategies planned and which were being led directly by the teacher (as opposed to being delivered by an external outdoor practitioner / ranger which is often an option available to schools, in a country park of this sort). However, as I discovered, what happened on the day bore little resemblance to the original plan and raises the conundrum regarding the impact/influence of ‘formal’ vs ‘informal’ LOtC.

So what do I mean by informal/formal learning? Well you have already heard about the “exploding bubbles” (what I now refer to as the ‘sparkling’ option); sessions observed, usually without worksheets or formal planning and demonstrating a very natural, organic and ‘informal’ learning experience; less adult intervention (ie child centred) and with more of a ‘nurturing’ style to foster an uninhibited and creative learning environment. In contrast I observed a number of other LOtC experiences which were more ‘formal’ in delivery ie ‘target-driven’ and with recognition of a more influential adult figure such as a Ranger/Outdoor Practitioner (and through instruction and guidance) to propel learning. Here is where the potential offence could be caused – ie suggesting that the latter may result in a less ‘bubbly’ (dare I use the word ‘flatter’ or ‘still’) atmosphere in the learning environment. Through the research it should be made clear that NO preference was concluded as both provide a wealth of positive outcomes for the children and staff involved and even the more controlled session still had brief moments of ‘exploratory’ magic, dependent on how the children engaged with their environment. However, regardless of formal/informal LOtC, there is definitely evidence to suggest that the way in which LOtC sessions are planned and delivered, does effect the behaviour and impact of the experiences on the learner and the ability to provide meaningful post-LOtC evaluations.

A significant element of the research recognised the different outcomes for LOtC activities delivered and managed directly by teachers visiting the park, in contrast to those delivered by the Rangers on site to facilitate the learning experience on the school’s behalf. In particular the Ranger sessions in ALL cases observed, provided a far more structured / controlled and formulaic system of delivery. As specialist outdoor practitioners in the field, the

16

PrimaryFirst

Rangers based at the country park were solely focused on providing a range of LOtC activities, with extensive tools and resources to reflect the different ages/key stages /abilities and general requirements that schools requested. Therefore they had the knowledge, experience and resources to manage the whole learning process and with numerous ways to measure learning to fit with curriculum/wider school objectives. Activities were creative and innovative, such as the ‘hibernator’ where teams had to successfully hide a cylinder of hot water as if it were a hibernating creature (the winning team being the one that kept their dormouse (cylinder) the warmest, or pretending to be squirrels racing through the forest to collect enough nuts and berries to see them through the winter (in most cases the over excited parent helper won…..!). These were tried and tested learning activities which engaged learners and with the help of additional worksheets, enabled tangible evidence of learning to be measured.

In contrast, sessions managed and delivered directly by the school teachers, provided a less rigid /controlled process and whilst there was some evidence of control and structure on occasion ie worksheets / activities linked to curriculum etc, the consistency of measurable learning outcomes was less apparent and sessions ranged from clear focus and control, through to near anarchy! That is not to say that effective LOtC experiences were not observed in school run sessions, more that there was less of a pattern or format which resulted in some sessions appearing more effective than others. The investigation also reinforced that not all learners gain the same experience, even when more structured tasks are set. This was clearly observed in one session with a boy who appeared disengaged from the main task but responded jubilantly when shaking a branch and watching leaves fall. This further demonstrates the difficulty in measuring the success of LOtC when some informal and quite insignificant event can impact upon a learner. This may not be measurable and nor does it meet a specific task or objective, but it should remind us of the powerful connections nature can provide for each individual, and far beyond a predictable text book or worksheet.

For schools it became apparent that the logistics of offsite LOtC provided added pressure and responsibility in co-ordinating the whole trip, and at times was seen to take over take from the focus of the actual LOtC experience. Schools have much more added responsibility beyond the

LOtC activity itself. Whereas a Ranger-led session has only the onsite ‘delivery’ itself to think about, for school-led sessions logistics begin back in the classroom, in terms of preparing more detailed risk assessments, booking transport, collecting money, gaining parental consent, let alone the actual lesson planning and resource preparation. By the time the trip actually arrives and children and parents/helpers are co-ordinated onto the bus, the actual objective of the session often takes a back seat, resulting in an understandably less structured and informal session on most occasions. Incidentally even with Ranger-led sessions logistics can still have a part to play, for example poor communications (between schools and rangers on requirements) and/or practicalities on the day can still hinder delivery, such as the impact of traffic delays / weather / staffing; particularly the over eager parent-helpers who can jeopardise an activity, by taking over tasks, if not reined in….

The research raised the question as to whether LOtC experiences should be more or less formal. According to the LOtC Manifesto its ambiguity suggests that any experience out of the classroom can be a valuable one, in which case how structured or formalised it is, may not be an issue. Should it matter if on the day the experience is far more fluid and holistic as opposed to structured and curriculum based? Surely the ‘fizz and bubbles’ are more important – and particularly ensuring every individual learner is engaged in some way. Interestingly, and counteracting some arguments for more ‘formal’ learning to aid effective evaluation, the original school, that led me to the sparking/still analogy, did manage to achieve some measurable outcomes. Despite the lack of structure /formality during the actual trip, post event activity back at the school demonstrated how teachers were able to create classroom tasks retrospectively to enable formative assessment to be measured. This involved children comparing their woodland experiences with the contrasting habitats of the rain forests. This would suggest that even if learning formality ‘goes out the window’ on the day, then it can still be rescued back in the classroom to ensure that post event evaluation can be undertaken effectively.

In conclusion the research demonstrates the significance for schools in responding effectively to the interconnecting themes from planning & delivery through to the importance of effective evaluation and monitoring. The contrast between ranger /school-led activities are arguably significant, with some school-led sessions tending to lack

17

consistent formality…..but not necessarily the ‘bubble and fizz’ factor! Therefore schools may benefit from taking a step back and considering in more depth, the implications of school or ranger-led activity. In particular this refers to the planning stages, logistical issues and weighing up the pros and cons of investment in ranger-led sessions versus more direct investment through the school. Rallying the call for more ‘lead in’ time for the planning of offsite trips, can only enhance the benefit of LOtC for schools and this will hopefully ensure that teachers are provided with sufficient time/support staff to construct the most effective LOtC resources and to ensure there is commitment from the school to see it through to fruition. Whilst the investigation recognised that there is no right answer, it does clarify the importance for schools to reflect

on their own roles and responsibilities within the emerging three themes. Recognition of how these three themes inter-relate and impact on the learner experience can only help to improve the overall LOtC experience both for the benefit of the school and the pupils directly. Ultimately it is hoped that the article, as suggested in the title, encourages discussion / reflection in the education and outdoor sectors; to consider whether schools prefer their LOtC experiences ‘sparking…..or still…’ AND if the school teacher or the outdoor practitioner should be the one pouring the metaphoric drinks…

Lynsey Melhuish is Course Leader, Outdoor Programmes at the Faculty of Business, Sport and Enterprise of Southampton Solent University

PrimaryFirst

18

Schools at the heart of big cities are often vibrant and culturally diverse, with pupils and their families having a broad and exciting range of experiences, skills and interests. However, these schools are also often faced with a multitude of challenges. These can range from a culture of low-aspiration, social problems, low incomes and a multitude of languages being spoken. Successful teaching and learning in these communities poses different challenges to more rural or suburban communities; the pupils are often very different and have different needs.

Meeting the varied and ever-changing needs of these pupils is an evolving challenge. One school that fits the profile of a diverse urban setting is Bannockburn Primary School in Greenwich. As a larger than average school with an above average percentage of casual admissions and above average proportions of children with Special Educational Needs, English as an Additional Language and Pupil Premium, it serves a community with diverse and demanding needs. Having recently been assessed by Ofsted as “excellent” the school is addressing these challenges through a creative, cross-curricular approach that enables the learners at

Bannockburn to make good progress.

We have evidence that all our children

without exception have made at least

expected progress in reading, writing

and maths.

All children have the right to an education which meets their values and experiences. In such a diverse multi-faith and multi-cultural community, the challenge is finding the common ground to use as a starting point. The backbone of curriculum planning at Bannockburn is the expectation that the curriculum must be relevant, interesting and engaging for all pupils. As such, staff must begin by considering the skills,

CrossCurriculum Teaching by Lauren Huntington

19

abilities and interests that pupils already have. Children are invited at the beginning of each new topic to contribute to the development of medium term planning; pupils are given dedicated time to generate questions they have linked to the topic or ideas for activities and tasks they would like to take part in over the next half term. This task is approached as a collaborative process; children work in small groups to discuss their initial thoughts and questions in an environment where there are no silly questions. This risk and pressure free atmosphere enables pupils to explore and voice their ideas freely before ideas, vocabulary and questions are collated on class mind-maps. These are used by teaching staff to tailor the curriculum provision to the needs and interests of the pupils which ensures a greater degree of pupil autonomy.

In a school with an above average percentage of casual admissions, this is no mean feat. Pupils must be able to make links between their own lives and experiences and the curriculum content. By using paintings, artefacts and places of interest as a starting point for learning, children are encouraged to explore and ask questions, developing the curiosity and passion for learning that are essential if they are to become life-long learners. Linking and theming learning across the curriculum allows for in depth learning to take place; knowledge and understanding from one area of the curriculum can be applied and used in a new way elsewhere. High standards in literacy and numeracy are associated with a curriculum which is broad, balanced and well managed (Alexander 2010). By planning a curriculum that allows children to become ‘experts’ in a particular field, they are motivated and engaged with their learning.

A creative approach to education needs to address the learning and curriculum skills and capabilities that pupils will develop rather than just the knowledge they will acquire. Creative learning can be summarised as questioning and challenging, making connections and seeing relationships, envisaging what might be, exploring ideas and reflecting critically on ideas, actions and outcomes (QCA 2005). For creative learning to be successful and purposeful, there must be a clear learning journey which gives pupils the freedom to discuss, analyse and explore whilst also retaining a focus on key skills central to the task. Where the National Curriculum does provide specific objectives to be covered for each year group, it does not specify how these must be taught or the way in which the learning must be evidenced. It

is in these areas that creativity in the curriculum can be explored.

There is an inherent risk when structuring learning in a cross-curricular way that the individual skills of each subject become lost or blurred; for a curriculum to be rich and varied, the foundation subjects must retain their significance and structure. Bannockburn addresses this challenge by planning a skills-based curriculum structured around the Chris Quigley skills. This approach is designed to give teaching staff the knowledge about what children need to learn (the requirements of the National Curriculum) and why they need to learn it (the skills that should be acquired) whilst leaving freedom to decide the context in which the curriculum content should be delivered (Quigley 2008). An undoubted advantage of this approach is that teachers maintain a focus on skills rather than knowledge, seeing children’s progression through school as an upwards trajectory where pupils build on and refine skills rather than simply acquiring factual information. For example, children develop skills as a historian by initially forming an understanding of historical chronology and identifying common features of specific historical periods before they use and discuss different historical sources, eventually learning to evaluate and compare the information presented in different sources of historical information.

The need for pupil motivation is central to enable high-quality learning to take place. For children to be able to commit to their own learning fully, they need to be clear

on the expected outcome for a sequence of lessons and what they need to do in order to achieve it. When this clear vision for a purposeful and meaningful outcome is shared with pupils, they are stimulated and inspired. A large part of this process is purposefully planning meaningful and exciting ways to publish and celebrate pupil’s outcomes and achievements. For example, pupil’s writing can be published for display purposes around school, bound into class books or shared through oral poetry readings or story-telling sessions. When pupils are clear on the purpose and intended outcome of a task, they engage with it enthusiastically. This process links with key life skills pupils will need to be successful: the ability to critically assess and review against agreed criteria, the ability to suggest improvements to their own and others’ work and the ability to choose appropriate form and content for communications.

At Bannockburn, an example of the success of committing to high-quality outcomes can be seen in the recent Christmas Concert held at Blackheath Halls. With performances from the school choir, orchestra and soloists from across Key Stage 2, the event extended pupil’s boundaries and demonstrated the talent within the school. This is made possible by the school’s continued focus on the value of the arts as discrete skills sets. Pupils receive specialist music teaching linked to their current topic and a wide range of individual and group lessons are offered. A recent Artsmark inspector identified how “arts underpin the curriculum…Everyone in the school feels pride in the achievements of the learners, not only in the discrete art forms but across the curriculum, which is delivered with such a high arts content.” (Artsmark Gold 2014).

An example of how Bannockburn’s creative, cross-curricular approach supports children’s progress and provides opportunities for high-quality outcomes is the recent work linked to an Anglo-Saxons & Vikings topic, ‘Battling for Britain’-a theme which arose directly from the new National Curriculum. Children were introduced to the topic through an image (the illustration from the Seamus Heaney translation of the Anglo-Saxon epic heroic poem ‘Beowulf’). They reflected on what they could see in the image, the questions they had and theorised about what the image could be depicting. In later sessions, the children read a short story version of the text and explored key scenes using a variety of drama techniques.

The power and impact of this approach was summarised by a year 6 pupil: “Doing lots of drama activities really helped me to understand the story; I particularly enjoyed the improvisation because I had a chance to explore and experiment with my character’s tone of voice, words and body language.”

Using ‘Beowulf’ as a stimulus, the pupils produced play scripts of key scenes, wrote alternative story endings and descriptive poetry based on Grendel. The pupils were able to make comparisons and links to modern day texts through the roles of the distinct character types. The effectiveness of this thematic approach can be evidenced through the high-quality written outcomes. Pupils developed and used ambitious vocabulary effectively and demonstrated a sophisticated awareness of how to organise texts for different purposes.

“(Leofric and Beowulf sit side by side on the edge of the longboat. The sea is calm, but thunder rumbles in the distance.)

PrimaryFirst

20

PrimaryFirst

“Grendel is a wave of blood crashing deafeningly-

Mammoth, malevolent and malicious,

A demon straight from fierce, fiery, ferocious hell,

Stealer of souls

Awoken from his sleep, Grendel glowered,

Innocent lives will be devoured” - Gurleen

“Death summons him ever closer-

A vile, vindictive villain,

The petrifying and piercing pest,

Callous, colossal and chilling,

Waiting for his feast to arrive,

He lurks in the portentous shadows at night

Be prepared for an ominous sight” - Saanchi

“The jaws of death yawn open ominously -

Spiteful and sinister,

Fierce, forbidding and ferocious

Like a malicious machine, he devours innocent souls

Lumbering loudly into Heorot hall,

His shark-like smile stretches across his foul face

The scent of murder engulfs each space” - Howard

21

Leofric: The King is our enemy, not our friend. I beseech you; don’t go-it’s not our battle to fight. (Urges desperately, clutches Beowulf’s arms)

Beowulf: They may have been our enemies, but I mean no harm to them. Besides, when we save Heorot, we will be heroes!” (takes Leofric’s hands in his own; faces close and speaking with intensity)”

To link to pupils personal experiences, opportunities were given for pupils to explore the history of their local area in the Anglo-Saxon period. They compared maps from different sources and historical periods to identify Anglo-Saxon settlements and identified changes in land use, using this to draw conclusions about the challenges faced by Anglo-Saxon settlers. A visit to the Sutton Hoo exhibit at the British Museum also gave the pupils first-hand experience of historical artefacts, offering them an invaluable chance to link their theoretical understanding of how the Anglo Saxons lived to physical objects. Across the curriculum, children also explored traditional Anglo-Saxon stories and their inherent moral messages, wove their own cloth using a loom inspired by traditional Anglo-Saxon methods and modelled their own clay bowl or jug using traditional Anglo-Saxon techniques, decorating with runes. Alongside the development of key skills in literacy, history, art & design, design & technology, RE and geography linked to the ‘Battling for Britain’ topic, emphasis was given to personal and social skills, described by Chris Quigley as the ‘Learning to Learn’ skills (Quigley 2008). This can be seen in the reflection of a year 6 pupil: “Beowulf is a hero and he shows our school value of perseverance– even when things seemed too difficult or dangerous, he just kept going-for example when he defeated the dragon.”Collaboration fosters creativity; this is true for both pupils and staff. Opportunities for collaboration are central to embedding a creative and stimulating curriculum. A commitment to collaboration is central to our ethos; input from all staff is welcomed and invited during the planning process and the learning support staff meets routinely with class teachers to share their views and insights. There is an expectation that everyone in the school is pro-active and involved, underpinned by a system whereby the planning for a year group is shared between members of that year group. One of the benefits of having a larger school (and therefore a larger staff) is

that staff can focus on a particular area of planning for which they hold responsibility, creating quality, creative plans and resources to excite and stimulate learners. Across the school, the positive responses from pupils to planned learning experiences show the degree to which learning is personalised to meet their needs and interests.

Engagement and participation through collaboration supports the development of key life skills including the ability to communicate clearly, to take on different roles, to negotiate with others and to cooperate to achieve common goals. By structuring learning opportunities to be collaborative and inclusive, pupils are trained to be active learners who recognise and enjoy the responsibility they have for their own learning. To support a collaborative approach for pupils, teachers must take a step back and recast themselves as facilitators of quality dialogue rather than purveyors of knowledge. Pupils must be allowed the space to direct and guide the direction they wish the learning to take; this also enables the ownership for the learning to be passed to the pupils. Within the new National Curriculum, there is the space and freedom to design a curriculum that is both thematic and coherent, whilst allowing for challenge and creativity by structuring learning around the key skills pupils will need to be successful in their futures.

ReferencesArtsmark Gold, Artsmark Validation Form- Bannockburn Primary School. Artsmark Council; Trinity College London (2014)Alexander, R.J. (ed) Children, their World, their Education: final recom-mendations of the Cambridge Primary Review, Routledge (2010)The Department for Education, School Performance Tables 2013, 5th March 2014, http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/2013/group.pl?qtype=NAT&super-view=pri&view=aat&set=2&tab=18&no=999&sort=ks2_13.ovameas&ord=desc (06.12.14)The Department for Education, School Performance Tables 2014, 15th September 2014, http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/group.pl?qtype=GR&f=VrNQ_LjFTQ&super-view=pri&view=aat&set=1&sort=&ord=&tab=1&no=998&pg=1 (22.12.14)

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, Creativity: find it, promote it (QCA/05/1596) London: QCA (2005)Chris Quigley, Planning a Skills- Based Curriculum, Chris Quigley Education Ltd (2008)Lauren Huntington leads Years 5 and 6 at Bannockburn Primary School. She is Assistant Head of the school.

PrimaryFirst

22

Background

Over the years since 2006, synthetic phonics has become the required method of teaching reading in primary schools in England, and that to be emphasized by those training primary teachers. Since 2012 a phonics check has been administered to all children in year 1 (aged five and a half to six and a half years of age) and again in year 2 to any who fail to reach the pass mark. I have evaluated:

• the research base claimed for current policy;

• the results of the first three years of the phonics check;

• its effects on practice in schools;• some of the associated costs;• the interim reports of the

government funded three-year research by the National Foundation for Educational Research.

Here only the key points are reported, the supporting evidence is in Learning to be Literate: insights from research for policy and practice and Synthetic phonics and Literacy Learning: an evidence-based critique (Clark, 2014a and 2014b).

Is Synthetic phonics the one best method?

Phonics instruction refers to literacy teaching approaches with a focus on the relationship between letters and sounds. Many would not dispute that for most children there may be a need for systematic teaching of phonics, but within a broad programme. The question here is

whether phonics should be the only method employed in the early stages, the books on which the children are learning be confined to simple texts, and whether synthetic phonics instruction is superior to analytic phonics. The defining characteristics of synthetic phonics are sounding out and blending. Analytic phonics avoids sounding out, inferring sound-symbol relationships from sets of words. The evidence presented in the Rose Report in 2006 may not be as strong as has been claimed, and in particular the Clackmannanshire Research still frequently cited by the government (see Clark 2014a chapter 13 and for a summary chapter 2 Clark 2014b).

Drawing on a wide range of research from 1960s onwards I found little evidence for one best method of teaching reading for all children, and certainly not for the superiority of synthetic phonics as the method as opposed to analytic phonics (see Clark, 2014b: chapter 3). Concern has been expressed by many researchers about this approach, in particular with regard to learning written English with its complex `deep orthography` (see Clark 2014a, chapter 21 and Clark 2014b, chapter 8 for a brief discussion).

Most researchers support the belief that:

• There is benefit from the inclusion of phonics within the early instruction in learning to read in English, within a broad programme;

• There is not evidence to support phonics in isolation as the one best method;

• There is not evidence for synthetic phonics as the required approach rather than analytic phonics.

The phonics check

A phonics check has been administered to all children in England at the end of year 1, aged from five and a half to six and a half years of age, since 2012, and retaken the following year by any child who failed to achieve the pass mark of 32 out of 40 words correctly read aloud. This pass mark was known in advance by the teachers in 2012 and 2013 but not in 2014: however, the pass mark in 2014 was still set at 32. Claims for improvement in standards of reading have been attributed by the government to this initiative and reported uncritically in most of the media.

The Statistical First Release of the results of the phonics screening test was published in September 2012.What was claimed as the `expected standard of phonic decoding`, namely 32 out of 40, was met by only 58% of pupils (62% of girls and 54% of boys) with wide differences between sub groups.

The following are matters of concern:

• the pass/fail decision resulting in many children aged between five and six years of age and their

A Critique of Synthetic Phonics…this is the evidence by Margaret M Clark

23

parents being told they have failed;

• the choice of 32 as the threshold mark;

• the inclusion of 20 pseudo words in the test;

• the decision to have the first twelve words pseudo words;

• the demand that the children who `failed` retake the test the following year;

• the lack of any diagnostic aspects or suggestion that other methods may be appropriate for some children who failed;

• possible effects on some successful readers who may yet have failed this test and been required to retake it the following year;

• large differences in percentage pass between the oldest and youngest children taking the check.

The existence of a `spike` in percentage of children on the pass mark of 32 as compared with 31 (a fail), a mark known in advance by the teachers, calls into question the validity of the check. I drew attention to this anomaly in 2012, and in 2013 when one per cent of children scored 31 and 7% scored 32. Reference is made to this in the interim report from NFER based on the 2012 results in Topic Note: 2012 Phonics Screening Check: research report May 2013, (L.Townley and D. Cotts) where they are pointed in their interpretation of these results:

A spike at the threshold of meeting the expected standard, suggesting that pupils on the borderline may have been marked up.

By removing pupils` scores around the spike and using regression techniques, it is estimated that 46% of pupils would meet the expected standard if there was not a spike at the borderline` (28). [that is instead of 58%]

Since the administration of the check was similar in 2013, with the pass mark known in advance, it seems likely that yet again the numbers of pupils passing the check have been over estimated. There may also be differences between schools, or markers, in the extent to which borderline pupils have been marked up. I was interested to note that the threshold mark was not in 2014 revealed in advance, though no reason for the change was given, nor for again setting the pass mark at 32. In view of this change, the legitimacy of comparing the results for 2014 with the two previous years must be questioned.

No tables have been published of percentage pass rate by month of birth, in spite of the fact that there was a year`s difference in age between the youngest and oldest

children taking the check. Each year I requested this information and found striking differences in pass rate between the oldest and youngest children. In 2014, 82% of the oldest children passed the check and only 65% of the youngest. Thus 36% of the youngest boys and 29% of the youngest girls will be required to re-sit the check in 2015. Surely a statistic such as this is important and worthy of comment by DfE. One might question whether many of the younger children might by the following year have matured sufficiently to pass the test without further synthetic phonics instruction. Yet because of the high stakes nature of the check, schools will focus on ensuring a higher pass rate.

While the results for individual schools are not made widely available, they are online for Ofsted to consult. It is disturbing that in the detailed analysis for individual school’s sub group percentages, often based on very small numbers, are compared with national figures. A school’s rating by Ofsted can be influenced by the extent to which it does adopt a synthetic phonics approach.

Costs of the phonics initiative

Match-funding for schools to purchase commercial phonics materials and training courses for teachers on synthetic phonics (from a recommended list) was available between September 2011 and October 2013, only one of the costs of this policy. Under the Freedom of Information Act I secured information on how much this initiative cost and which specific programmes had secured the bulk of the funding amounting to £46 million. Clearly commercial interests are gaining an increasing hold on government policy here and in many other parts of the world, including, The United States, Germany, France and also in many developing countries (see Clark, 2014a chapter 18 and 2014b chapter 6).

From the detailed technical report to which I was referred by DfE for answers to some of my questions I was not able to establish who was responsible for several of the aspects of the final check that I and others criticised. It was clear that the experts named supported the use of pseudo words, but not whether any of the decisions on the phonics check caused concern to the independent experts consulted for the pilot study. For example, it is not clear from that detailed report who decided:• To make the first twelve words of the check all pseudo

words;

• to inform the teachers in advance of the pass mark of 32 out of 40;

24

PrimaryFirst

• to restrict the information made available (including to parents) to a pass/fail;

• not to check the relative scores for pseudo words versus real words;

• not to provide diagnostic information from the test, and

• that those who scored less than 32 retake the test the following year.

Findings from NFER interim reports

DfE commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to undertake an evaluation to assess whether the screening check is meeting the objectives set out by the Government, funded from 2012-15. The two interim reports have raised important issues about the validity of the scores and the understanding of many teachers of the distinction between synthetic phonics (that required) and analytic phonics.

The first interim report provides an overview of participating schools` phonics teaching practices and the emerging impact of the check. Some benefits are acknowledged, `including confirming the results of other assessments and placing an emphasis on phonics teaching`. Issues are raised about the suitability of the check for certain groups of pupils. This includes not only pupils with special educational needs but also high ability pupils and those with English as an additional language. However, views on the value of the check seemed contradictory, since one of the key messages to emerge was that: Many schools appear to believe that a phonics approach to teaching reading should be used alongside other methods. This would not run counter to current government policy that systematic synthetic phonics be taught first, fast and only; yet many teachers did not appear to appreciate there was a conflict. In the first interim report no discussion is reported with the teachers of analytic versus the recommended synthetic phonics and it is open to debate why the staff interviewed had not fully endorsed the government`s approach, whether from confusion or from conviction! (See also pages 19-20 and 23 in the report). A third of survey respondents felt in some way that phonics has too high a priority in current education policy. When questions were asked specifically about the check, many were negative, while others regarded it as `broadly acceptable but unnecessary`.

The second interim report, published in May 2014, together with technical appendices (Phonics Screening check evaluation: research report, Walker, M, Bartlett, S et al) provides an overview of participating schools` phonics

teaching practices and highlights any changes since 2012. It also explores the emerging impact of the check. Teachers were positive about phonics as an approach to teaching reading; yet in the majority of schools other strategies alongside phonics were also supported. More than half of schools reported that they taught synthetic phonics `first and fast; however, many teachers believe that a phonics approach should be used alongside other methods`. Most schools reported discrete phonics sessions for all children in reception. year 1 and year 2 and frequently in nursery. When asked about changes to phonics teaching since the previous year the most frequently reported change was the introduction of pseudo-words.

Only about three in ten of the literacy coordinators agreed or agreed somewhat that the check was valuable to teachers. Furthermore many of the teachers interviewed in the case study schools thought the outcomes from the check told them nothing new and that the check will `have minimal, if any impact on the standard of reading and writing in the schools` To quote from page 10 on any possible impact of the check on standards:

Thus attainment in reading and writing more broadly appears unaffected by the schools` enthusiasm, or not, for systematic phonics and the check, and by their approach to the teaching of phonics

Next steps in the NFER research will include endpoint surveys and case studies; analysis of national pupil database data and of value for money. It is hoped that the final NFER Report due in May 2015 includes consideration of the following:

a) The extent to which the teachers do appreciate the difference between synthetic and analytic phonics.

b) Whether the teachers have accepted the government`s demand for synthetic phonics `first and fast only` in the early stages. So far the evidence is conflicting on this as the practice seems to contradict many of the statements.

c) The effect of the new emphasis on pseudo-words generated in many schools following the introduction of the phonics check. How do children, and parents, perceive the role of such words?

d) The effect on the curriculum of practice for the phonics check and of children`s view of literacy.

e) An analysis of the children`s perspective on the check and their attitude to literacy, including the effect on the reading materials offered to children who were already reading with understanding prior to the check.

25

f) A further analysis of the effect of this new emphasis on children whose mother tongue is not English, those with speech and language disorders and any who continue to fail to reach the required standard even by year 2.

Phonics Screening Check: 2013 post-administration technical report:

In 2014 the Standards and Testing Agency published online for DfE, Phonics screening check: 2013 post-administration technical report.

On page 5 it is stated that the technical report published in December 2012, concluded that:

Having examined all of the evidence gathered so far through the pilot and the live sample, the Department is satisfied that the phonics screening check is sufficiently valid for its defined purpose and has acceptable levels of reliability.

It is worth noting the comment on page 22 that: `This could be an indication that there is now more emphasis in the classroom on decoding pseudo-words`. That comment may be worrying and is a suggestion supported by the latest NFER report. However, it should also be noted that there is more latitude in what is accepted as a correct pronunciation of the pseudo-words.

The final conclusion by DfE is that having examined the evidence so far:

it is satisfied that the phonics screening check is sufficiently valid for its defined purpose and has acceptable levels of reliability (page 23).

The NFER research referred to above and the evidence I have gathered from other sources would make me question this statement.

The Statistical First Release from DfE issued on 25.9.14

This states that there has been an increase in Year 1 pupils passing the test from 58% in 2012, to 69% in 2013 and 74% in 2014, and that 88% of pupils met the expected standard by the end of Year 2. This includes those retaking the test or taking it for the first time in 2014. It is also stated that within the various groupings the proportions achieving the expected standard have increased within the last year. In the media the claims from DfE are mainly cited uncritically, for example: `Pupils doing better on phonics tests year in year` (The Independent 25.9.14)

Unresolved issues concerning the phonics check

• No clear rationale has been provided for identifying the mark of 32 as meeting what is referred to as the

expected standard in the phonics check;

• no clear explanation has been given for the inclusion of pseudo words in the test;

• no analysis has been undertaken of the contribution of the pseudo words to the final scores, yet more latitude is permitted in pronunciation of pseudo words than the real words;

• the evidence of a spike in percentage of children gaining a mark of 32 rather than 31 in the first two years of administration of the test, a pass mark known to the teachers in advance, raises serious questions about the validity of this test;

• the rationale for and implications of not revealing the pass mark in advance in 2014 yet having the same pass mark as in the previous years;

• the implications of a large difference in pass rate between the youngest and oldest children, a year different in age;

• the needs of those who failed to reach the arbitrary pass mark on this test which may not be met by a continuing focus on synthetic phonics;

• the effects on children who could already read with understanding, who failed the test and were required to re-sit it;

The phonics check is not diagnostic and there is no specific funding linked to the needs of individual children, other than commercial synthetic phonics programmes following the identification of children as failing the check. Yet this test has become so high stakes, rather than as originally claimed `light touch`, that it is affecting the curriculum experienced by young children.

Final comments

Lacking so far is any assessment of the effects of these developments on young children`s experiences of and attitudes towards literacy. How will the isolated nature of much of their tuition in phonics, the new emphasis on pseudo words and the phonics check itself influence their understanding of the nature of literacy and attitude to reading? We need to interview the children and gain insight into their views, including those who passed the check, any who could read but failed the check, and those who were required to re-sit the following year. There is so far no evidence of the effects of this government policy on the training of teachers, where all courses are required to focus on synthetic phonics as the main aspect of their programme. Finally, what messages are we giving parents

26

PrimaryFirst

on how to help their young children to become literate and to value the written word?

There is surprisingly little research information on the difference in complexity in learning to read in languages where there is a more or less regular relationship between the sounds and spelling of words, or of learning to read in a language that is not your first language. Yet, it is increasingly common for children to learn to read in more than one language, and is estimated that currently at least half the world`s children learn to read in their second language. Figures released following a question in the House of Lords on 3 March 2014, revealed that by January 2013 19 per cent of pupils starting school in England in Year 1 had English as an additional language. The effect of this on literacy learning has received little attention, yet this percentage is likely to increase.

In shallow orthographies it may be natural to teach reading by synthetic phonic methods by which letters are decoded to sounds and then combined to form larger units such as syllables. In deep alphabetic orthographies, such as English, a combined method by which children learn basic alphabetic decoding procedures and at the same time master a sight vocabulary of familiar words may be more appropriate. (See chapter 21 in Clark 2014a for a discussion of the researches on this topic). This has so far received little attention by those responsible for literacy policy in England.

England is not the only country where evidence from research is being ignored, simplistic tests are driving the curriculum, available resources for schools are being spent on commercial products linked to the tests and schools are being ranked on the basis of such tests. How do people with knowledge that should count make themselves heard?`

References

Clark, M. M. (2014a) Learning to be Literate: insights from research for policy and practice. Birmingham: Glendale Education. Available from www.witleypress.ac.uk.

Clark, M. M. (2014b) Synthetic Phonics and Literacy Learning: an evidence-based critique. Birmingham: Glendale Education. (ebook and paperback, available from www.witleypress.ac.uk).Margaret Clark is Visiting Professor at Newman University and Emeritus Professor at the University of Birmingham. She may be reached at [email protected]

Footnote: I submitted the following as a comment to the Education Select Committee`s online enquiry on 14th December 2014 as evidence on phonics. The phonics check was cited by Sir Michael Wilshaw HMCI in his speech launching his Annual Report on 10 December 2014. To quote:Just as importantly, primary schools are making great efforts to get learning right early on. The introduction of the phonics screening check has helped…. Primary head teachers understand that the sooner they can shape a child`s education, particularly when the child is from a disadvantaged background the greater the chance of later school success.

1. It is no surprise that there has been an increase in the percentage of children passing the check in year 1 and those in year 2 who have been required to re-sit it. This is not evidence that there is benefit beyond achievement in what has become a high stakes pass/fail test., not only for all children aged five and a half to six and a half years of age who are required to take the check but also for their schools and individual teachers. The pass mark has been the same each year, and for the first two years was known in advance to the teachers. There is evidence of practice for the check (including the pseudo words that form half the test). Furthermore, concerns have been expressed at the validity of the check (see Clark 2014 chapters 4 and 5).

2. There has each year been a large gap in percentage pass between the oldest and youngest children sitting the check, not noted in government reports, with 36% of the youngest boys and 29% of the youngest girls required to re-sit the check in 2015. Schools are expected to inform the parents of the results, thus a failure is recorded for many young children early in their school career, including not only many of the youngest children but also some children already reading with understanding who is has been reported may also fail the test. The check may also be `shaping young children`s education` in literacy, but in limiting ways, particularly for those children who fail and are required to re-sit the test.

3. NFER has been commissioned to undertake a three year research on the government phonics policy and two interim reports have been published. These identify concerns of many teachers about many aspects of the phonics check, but do not provide evidence of the effect of the check on standards of literacy (see Clark, 2014 chapter 7).

4. If Sir Michael`s comments are based on inspections by Ofsted such assessments of some schools may have been influenced by the pass on the phonics check which for each school is available online to inspectors, or their judgement as to the extent to which the school has accepted the government`s policy on synthetic phonics.

It is to be hoped that the final NFER report in May 2015 will provide evidence on the effect of the phonics check on standards of literacy, on the wider literacy experience of young children during their early years in primary school and these children`s understanding of the key features of written English. [The references in my article are also cited here].

The National Association is delighted to make I-Spy books available to all schools.

The books are invaluable in enhancing and illuminating learning out of school.

For further information and details of how and where to purchase please visit:

www.ispymichelin.com/nape-24-w.asp

The NAPE I-Spy Programme

National Association for Primary Education

...a complete range of over 50 titles are available

• The complete range of over 50 titles are available

• Priced at just £2.00 per book - 20% cheaper than list price (Min order quantity 10 per title)

• Orders need to be paid for in advance by credit or debit card

• Please note that the minimum order quantity is 10 per title to enjoy this special rate.

• Teacher Guides available on-line to assist in activity planning with project ideas, curriculum advice and higher level thinking - these guides will be made available progressively.

• Special I-Spy notebooks at 5 for £1 on qualifying orders, whilst stocks last.

• Post and Packing free on orders more than £30• Next day order fulfilment received before 12pm

Post and Packing free on orders totalling more than £30.00. Next day delivery if orders received before 12 pm.

Key Features

28

PrimaryFirst

From phonics check to evidence checkIn ministerial speeches ‘evidence-based policy’ is now as almost routine as ‘I care passionately about…’ and is as likely to be greeted with hollow laughter. So it’s to the credit of the House of Commons Education Select Committee that it has undertaken an enquiry into the use of evidence by the Department of Education, asking the DfE to list the evidential basis of a number of policies before inviting the public to comment via a web forum. Nine areas of policy were nominated for these ‘evidence checks’: phonics, teaching assistants, professional measurements metrics, summer born children, the National College of Teaching and Leadership, universal infant free school meals, the impact of raising the school participation age, music, the school starting age. There was a further section on DfE’s use of evidence generally and this promoted the largest number of responses, including the following.

DFE’s use of evidence

Several contributors to this enquiry commend DfE for its commitment to evidence, but surely this is a minimum condition of good governance, not a cause for genuflection. More to the point are the concerns of Dame Julia Higgins that DfE’s use of evidence is inconsistent (or as Janet Downs puts it, ‘slippery’) and those many other contributors across the Committee’s nine themes who find DfE overly selective in the evidence on which

is draws and the methodologies it prefers.

The principal filters appear to be ideological (‘is this researcher one of us’?) and electoral (‘will the findings boost our poll ratings/damage those of the opposition?) and such scientifically inadmissible criteria are compounded by DfE’s marked preference for research dealing in big numbers, little words and simple solutions.

In the latter context, we should be wary of endorsing without qualification the view of several contributors that the randomised control trial (RTC) is the evidential ‘gold standard’ trumping all other attempts to get at the truth. Education is complex and contested, RCT language of ‘treatment’ and ‘dosage’ is fine for drug trials but is hardly appropriate to an activity which is more craft and art than science, and in untutored hands the effect to make teaching fit this paradigm may reduce to the point of risibility or destruction the very phenomena it claims to test. I should add that I make these observations not as a disappointed research grant applicant but as a recipient of substantial funding from the rightly esteemed Education Endowment Foundation for a ‘what works’ project involving RCT.

Of the nine ‘evidence check’ memoranda submitted to the Committee by DfE, those on phonics, the school starting age and the National College most conspicuously display some of the tendencies I’ve so far identified. Thus the defence and citations in DfE’s phonics statement neatly sidestep the methodological controversies and evidential disputes surrounding what is now the government’s mandated approach to teaching reading, so the contributor who applauds DfE’s grossly biased bibliography as ‘accurate’ is plain wrong.

DfE’s school starting age citations carelessly – or perhaps carefully – attributes a publication of the Cambridge Primary Review (Riggall and Sharp) to NFER, but again avoid any evidence running counter to the official view that children should be packed off to school as soon

as possible; or the more nuanced finding of the Cambridge Primary Review that the real issue is not the starting age for formal schooling but the availability and quality of early years provision, wherever it takes place; or indeed the inconvenient truth that some of this country’s more successful PISA competitors start formal schooling one or even two years later than England.

By Robin Alexander

...so the contributor who applauds DfE’s grossly biased bibliography as ‘accurate’ is plain wrong.

29

As for the National College of Teaching and Leadership (NCTL), no independent evidence is offered in support of DfE’s insistence that this agency, and the models of teacher training and school improvement it espouses, justify its consumption of public funds. Only two publications are cited in DfE’s ‘evidence check’. One is NCTL’s statement of accounts; the other a DfE press release which is neither evidence nor independent. Proper evaluation of NCTL became all the more essential when DfE abolished the relatively ‘arms length’ bodies that NCTL subsumed and charged it with ‘delivering’ approved policies. Of course NCTL can be shown to be effective in relation to the delivery of policies x and y. But what if those policies are wrong?

The committee has received many unhappy comments from parents about schools’ draconian responses to term-time absences. These highlight a further problem: there are important areas of education policy, at both school and national level, where evidence is rarely or never on view and parents and the electorate are expected to comply with what may be little more than unsubstantiated claims. In the case of those blanket bans on term-time absence about which so many parents complain to the committee, as with the tendency to fill more and more children’s (and parents’) waking hours with homework (i.e. schoolwork done at home) of variable and in some cases very little educational value, there appears to be a deep-seated assumption that schools have a monopoly of useful learning. The Cambridge Primary Review scotched this mistaken and indeed arrogant belief in the comprehensive research review on children’s lives outside school that it commissioned from Professor Berry Mayall. Except that the then government preferred summarily to reject the evidence and abuse the Review team rather than engage with the possibility that schools might do even better if more of them understood and built on what their pupils learn outside school.

So although the Education Committee has applied its ‘evidence check’ to nine areas of policy, it might also consider extending its enquiry in two further directions: first, by examining the evidential basis of policies and initiatives, such as those exemplified above, about which teachers, parents and indeed children themselves express concern: second by adding some of those frontline policies which DfE has justified by reference to evidence but which are conspicuously absent from the Committee’s list.

Examples in the latter category might include (i) the government’s 2011 -13 review of England’s National Curriculum; (ii) the development of new requirements for assessment and accountability in primary schools; (iii) the rapid and comprehensive shift to school-led and school-based initial teacher education; (iv) the replacement of the old TDA teacher professional standards by the current set; (v) the strenuous advocacy and preferential treatment of academies and free schools. Each of these illustrates, sometimes in extreme form, my initial concerns about politico-evidential selectivity and methodological bias.

Thus in the 2011 – 13 national curriculum review ministers deployed exceptionally reductionist and naïve interpretations of the wealth of international evidence with which they were provided by DfE officials and others. They resisted until the last moment overwhelming

evidence about the educational centrality of spoken language. They ignored Ofsted warnings, grounded in two decades of school inspection (and indeed evidence going back long before Ofsted) about the damage caused by a two-tier curriculum that elevates a narrow view of educational basics above all else – damage not just to the wider curriculum but also the ‘basics’ themselves. And they declined to publish or act on their own internal enquiry which confirmed the continuing seriousness of the

challenge of curriculum expertise in primary schools, an enquiry which- and this much is to ministers’ credit – DfE undertook in response to, and in association with, the Cambridge Primary Review. The report of that enquiry, and the wider evidence that informed it, still awaits proper consideration. A job for the Education Committee perhaps?

Similarly, DfE, like its predecessor DCSF, has stubbornly held to its view – challenged by the Education Committee as well as numerous research studies and the Bew enquiry – that written summative tests are the best way both to assess children’s progress and hold schools and teachers to account, and that they provide a valid proxy for children’s attainment across the full spectrum of their learning.

Then, and in pursuit of what has sometimes looked suspiciously like a vendetta against those in universities who undertake the research that sometimes rocks the policy boat, DfE has ignored international evidence about

They resisted until the last moment overwhelming evidence about the educational centrality of spoken language.

30

PrimaryFirst

the need for initial teacher education to be grounded in equal partnership between schools and higher education, preferring the palpable contradiction of locating an avowedly ‘world class’ teacher education system in schools that ministers tell us are failing to deliver ‘world class’ standards. Relatedly, DfE has accepted a report from its own enquiry into professional standards for teachers which showed even less respect for evidence than the earlier and much – criticised framework for TDA, coming up with ‘standards’ which manage to debase or exclude some of the very teacher attributes that research shows are most crucial to the standards of learning towards which these professional standards are supposedly directed.

Finally, in pursuit of its academies drive government has ignored the growing body of evidence from the United States that far from delivering superior standards as claimed, charter schools, academies’ American inspiration, are undermining public provision and tainted by financial and managerial corruption. England may not have gone that far, but new inspection evidence on comparative standards in academies and maintained schools (in HMCI’s Annual Report for 2013 – 14) should give the Committee considerable pause for thought above the motivation and consequences of this initiative.

In relation to the Committee’s enquiry as a whole, the experience of the Cambridge Primary Review (2006 – 10) and its successor the Cambridge Primary Review Trust is salutary, depressing and (to other than hardened cynics) disturbing. Here we had the nation’s most comprehensive enquiry into English primary education for half a century, led by an expert team, advised and monitored by a distinguished group of the great and good, supported by consultants in over 20 universities as well as hundreds of professionals, and generating a vast array of data, 31 interim reports and a final report with far-sighted conclusions and recommendations, all of them firmly anchored in evidence, including over 4000 published sources.

Far from welcoming the review as offering, at no cost to the taxpayer, an unrivalled contribution to evidence-based policy and practice in this vital phase of education, DCSF – DfE’s predecessor - systematically sought to traduce and discredit it by misrepresenting its findings in order to dismiss them, and by mounting ad personam attacks against the Review’s principals. Such behaviour in the face of authoritative and useful evidence was unworthy

of holders of elected office and, for teachers and children in our schools, deeply irresponsible.

It is with some relief that we note that DfE’s stance towards the Review and its successors the Cambridge Primary Review Trust has been considerably more positive under the Coalition than under Labour, and we record our appreciation of the many constructive discussion we have had with ministers and officials since 2010. Nevertheless, when evidential push comes to political shove, evidence discussed and endorsed in such meetings capitulates, more often than not, to the overriding imperatives of ideology, expediency and media narrative. This, notwithstanding the enhanced research profile applauded by the other contributors, remain the default.

Robin Alexander is Fellow of Wolfson College at the University of Cambridge, Honorary Professor of Education at the University of York and Chair of the Cambridge Primary Review Trust.

For further information about the Trust’s work, see www.cprtrust.org,uk

This article was first published on the 17th December 2014 on CPRT Posts.

31

Why choose a Trust?

Having worked well together in the past, the schools formally established the collaboration with a view to inspiring excellence and furthering opportunity for all. By forming a Co-operative Trust each school retains its individual autonomy and governing body whilst at the same time offering exciting opportunities for its pupils, staff and wider community. As described by Rachel Davis, Chair of the Trust, this was crucial for the schools as they considered their options in the current political environment dominated by on-going educational reform.

“We wanted to proactively respond to the current landscape rather than sit back and wait for the changes to hit us, but we all knew we wanted to retain our autonomy and independence. As a group of high achieving schools with experienced head teachers, we wanted to lead our own schools. We were keen to protect our individual identity and didn’t want to become clones of each other. Retaining what is unique and special about our schools was important because that was what had made us successful. What we did want to do was learn from the strengths of each other, continue to share our excellent practice

Better Together – Utilising the power of collaboration

by Vicky Hewitson

The first Co-operative Trust of schools in Birmingham looks back at the last eighteen months.

In May 2013 seven forward thinking schools, six primary and one special school (Coppice, Four Oaks, Langley, Little Sutton, Hollyfield, Moor Hall and Whitehouse Common) made history by forming the first Co-operative Learning Trust in Birmingham.

32

PrimaryFirst

and work together so we could be the best we could be. The Co-operative Trust model offered us that opportunity.”

The trust schools undertook a robust consultation process supported by the Co-operative College and the final decision to proceed lay with the governors of each of the seven schools. The schools are maintained schools supported by a charitable foundation. They were required to change from community to foundation status and they have engaged key partners to support the achievement of their vision, namely Birmingham City University, University College Birmingham, the King Edward’s schools, Sutton Coldfield Rotary Club, and the Co-operative Society. The aim is to utilise the experience and expertise of the schools working as partners to enrich both curricular and extra curricular learning opportunities.

The Co-operative Trust model is a membership based model with people from the stakeholder groups becoming members of the ‘educational co-operative’. This enables parents, teachers, pupils, support staff, partners and governors to play an active role. There is clear evidence from inspection reports that schools working co-operatively provide benefits in terms of curriculum, sustainability of school improvement and further raising of aspirations across school communities as well as more effectively promoting community cohesion. The co-operative movement offers a range of curriculum materials to the schools and encourages the trust to address educational initiatives through local, national and international engagement. The local authority also continues to challenge and support schools and takes an active part in helping the schools to address national policies.

Shared values and excellence are the central features of the trust

The trust’s priorities are to inspire excellence by striving to improve the quality of teaching and learning, furthering aspirations amongst all members of the learning community, harnessing resources efficiently in the interests of excellent outcomes for all, and finally, providing and sustaining the well-being of all concerned to enable enjoyable and effective learning.

These priorities are underpinned by the core co-operative values of democracy, self-responsibility, self-improvement, co-operation, strong sense of community and working together to strengthen that community.

The Co-operative Society encourages schools to work collaboratively rather than working alone or in competition with each other. “We aim for our schools to be the preferred choice - for young people and parents when selecting a school as well as for staff when seeking

a position in schools”

Debbie Allen, head teacher at Whitehouse Common school, explains, “Strengths and areas for development are openly shared and solutions provided from within the partnership, thus ensuring a cohesive approach to the pursuit of excellence in education and high aspirations for the whole community”

Eighteen months later.…. the Trust has made a real impact on schools.

Since forming the Trust in summer 2013, four schools have been inspected by Ofsted. One went from ‘Satisfactory’ to ‘Good’ and three were awarded ‘Outstanding’ status. There is no doubt amongst the senior leaders that the work undertaken within the trust contributed to the inspection outcomes. Andrew Steggall, Head of Moor Hall, recognises this, “The knowledge gained from work across the schools has had a significant impact on the development of teaching and learning at our school. For example, observation of good practice in different settings provided the clarity we needed to advance the development of individual targets for our children as well as improve the use of the classroom environment”.

School review – raising standards, excellence and preparing for inspection

In addition to the expertise of very experienced head teachers, within the trust there are also a National Leader in Education (NLE), a Local Leader of Education (LLE), two Ofsted trained inspectors, two National Leaders for Governance (NLG) as well as expertise in special educational needs. One of the trust schools is also part of a federation bringing specific knowledge in the relevant governance and management arrangements.

The Co-operative model is a membership based model with people from the stakeholder groups becoming members of the educational co-operative

33

The trust schools have used this expertise to develop a rigorous review process to ensure high standards are maintained. The head teachers form a mini inspection team and undertake regular reviews in each of the schools in the trust. Each review takes into consideration any specific focus identified by the recipient school and involves data interrogation, interviews with SLTs, lesson observations, book reviews and pupil conferencing. Evidence based feedback is provided highlighting strengths and areas/suggestions for improvement and development. As well as delivering tangible outcomes for the schools and the children, this ‘critical friend’ intervention enables the whole school to be confident when preparing for Ofsted inspection and to have a clear understanding of what to expect. Furthermore, embedding monitoring and self-evaluation techniques within schools also enhances the staff self-reviews, giving them more ownership of their own professional development.

This review process has developed further throughout the autumn term with a focus on schools’ Raise Online information. All the Head teachers have received training from an Ofsted inspector to interrogate the data and identify enquiry trails in accordance with the inspection process. This was followed by a detailed review of pupils’ work books with an emphasis on identifying progress and ascertaining what specifically enabled it. Where progress cannot be seen questions are generated to identify why it is lacking and what is needed to address that. These additional dimensions have been added to the regular reviews undertaken in each of the partner primary schools adding depth and further challenging all aspects of teaching and learning with a view to raising standards. In acco rdance with the principles of system leadership, deputy head teachers from all the schools are now involved in undertaking the reviews. Not only does this facilitate organisational development, it also offers high quality continuous professional development opportunities and succession planning which are key characteristics of the trust.

Implementation of these reviews across the group of schools has also enabled the benchmarking of judgements so that the team is now highly skilled in

making consistent judgements of school performance and identifying recommendations to move a school forward.

Sharing the benefits

In accordance with the values and cooperative principles of the Learning Trust which embody a responsibility for all schools to work collaboratively for the benefit of a wider community, the impact of this school improvement work is now being shared with schools across Birmingham.

The trust is working closely with the local authority supporting their School Improvement Strategy in support of programmes similar to those offered by teaching school alliances nationally. This involves implementing the trust review framework and commissioning appropriate school support and interventions from across the trust to address identified needs. Schools are encouraged to challenge current practice and carefully measure the impact of interventions and strategies employed to tackle issues of concern or under performance. Designated head teachers within the trust are responsible for monitoring and assessing the impact of the support provided, reporting back to the local authority.

Sharing expertise, facing challenges together and saving money

The knowledge gained from work across the schools has had a significant impact on the development of teaching and learning within the trust schools. Both teaching and non-teaching staff at all levels as well as governors within the schools have been encouraged to work together to share excellent practice, support development and tackle new policies introduced by both local and

national government. Representatives across the schools and partners work together to develop curriculum, share expertise and learning from one another, devise common approaches and take ideas and best practice to suit the individual needs of each school. Working groups have been tackling topics including performance management, maths planning and assessment, the early years programme, special education needs,

moderation of Year 6 work, school procurement and developing a strategic approach to the use, management, teaching and assessment of ICT across the schools. Furthermore, the Trust is developing its own high quality training, ranging from short sessions on specific aspects

Schools are encouraged to challenge current practice and carefully measure the impact of interventions

of the curriculum such as achieving Level 5 writing, to an 8 week programme on developing outstanding teaching for NQTs across the Trust. Anthony Smith at Little Sutton Primary describes how the NQT course impacted on him:

“Visiting other schools, observing lessons and having to think about providing constructive and challenging feedback to colleagues has been a real eye opener. It has given me a totally fresh perspective on the content and delivery of lessons. For me personally, this team approach has been key to improving my own teaching. What’s more I have found some great friends and colleagues to share the high and lows of life as a NQT!”

The partner universities are now involved In the NQT programme and are exploring opportunities for accreditation for participants. A programme of outstanding teaching for teaching assistants has also been launched. This growing portfolio of training opportunities is on offer to other schools in the area including those which feature in the City’s School Improvement Strategy.

Work with secondary school partners, the King Edward’s schools, has blossomed ranging from a focus on increasing opportunities for children to attend the city’s grammar schools, particularly targeting those children who may not otherwise have considered them, to the development of bespoke curriculum enrichment programmes supporting both teachers and pupils. Children have also enjoyed a range of exciting visits to the secondary settings, meeting well known authors, participating in sporting competitions and taking part in a literary festival. Likewise, secondary students have been spending time at the primary schools in their weekly non curriculum time and will be working with the primary pupils to develop a Trust Pupil Council to undertake work underpinned by the trust values. Collaborative work across the KS2 and KS3 transition takes place routinely.

Working together and sharing costs has enabled the schools to attract high calibre trainers to explore the new curriculum as well as reinforce teaching techniques such as effective questioning. Staff have worked collaboratively to create common policies including the maths calculations and non-negotiables, response to leave of absence in term time and e- safety which also evolved into the development of shared workshops for parents across the trust. The involvement of partners

in specific working groups have provided opportunities and value for all. For example, the ICT Strategy Group has facilitated computing based placements for students within the trust schools to accelerate teaching and learning in this area. Likewise the University Leader for teaching maths is exploring research within the schools to understand the barriers to learning for some pupils in maths which is preventing them from progressing. The hypothesis assumes that some children are not secure in understanding the connections in mathematical concepts, for example, in place value, and between multi plication and division. Too often children are moved on before understanding is firmly established. The fragility of the learning is not immediately evident and this has implications for progression at later stages of learning. The potential for developing partnership relationships further and realising mutual benefits for all involved is significant.

Following the reduced role and provision of services from the local authority, the trust has developed a joint approach to commissioning service providers. Fiona Woolford from Langley School explains, “The purchasing power this generates enables negotiation of highly competitive rates as well as flexibility within service provision. This has been particularly beneficial to the smallest school in the trust and the special school. The service provision has been specifically tailored to meet our specific needs and ultimately has been more cost effective.” Recently the schools subscribed to a local mentoring service which charges a fixed fee. Given the reduced scale of need in these two schools they were able to negotiate one fee to cover both of them.

The schools have also embarked on the employment of shared staff to work across the group to achieve efficiencies and be flexible in responding to the changing needs of the each school. This has included a Business Manager and a Strategic Lead for ICT. The opportunities are endless.

Everyone plays a part

The children have been involved in dedicated collaborative activities, raising money for the Rotary campaign against polio. They visit other trust schools taking part in working days exploring the trust values with others in their year group. An award is presented in each school every half term to pupils demonstrating the

34

PrimaryFirst

35

values of the trust. Students from the partner universities facilitate the trust working days. The university states:

“We are encouraged by the range of opportunities that will present themselves both for our students and staff. The benefits extend beyond teaching students across other faculties, for instance members of staff from different departments have become governors at the trust schools. Obviously everyone stands to gain from these types of relationships and the potential for the future of the trust is strengthened”

It can be lonely out there…..

The impact of this structured approach to collaborative working has been significant for the head teachers. Richard Green, head teacher at Coppice Primary discusses this, “Running a school is an exciting, rewarding and challenging task. I feel very privileged to be in this position. However it can get lonely. Quite rightly we are constantly accountable to all our stakeholders – pupils, parents, staff, governors, authorities, inspectors and so on. Whilst we work hard to meet their needs, sometimes it can feel like no-one is looking after our own individual needs. With ever changing expectations in education we have been able to offer wonderful support to each other to work through them. As a result I know I am more effective at meeting all those needs and feel confident about facing the challenges that lie ahead”.

The trust head teachers and deputy heads have developed highly professional working relationships creating both formal and informal opportunities to share information, develop shared policies and discuss new policies and approaches. They regularly benchmark performance and explore different approaches such as the use of pupil and sport premium. There is no requirement or pressure for the schools to standardise structures or delivery, however good ideas are invaluable. For instance, three schools have transformed the structure of their governors’ meetings to become more streamlined and efficient whilst maintaining their focus and purpose. Catherine Lewis, Head teacher at Hollyfield Primary explains, “Following a collective review of the management of our governing processes we have made amendments. Now we get through the business quickly and efficiently and the time spent preparing my head

teacher’s report has significantly reduced. Everyone has noticed the difference. The meetings are more engaging and we have the opportunity to really debate the important issues whilst still complying with the business requirements. There is now much more focus on looking to the future”.

Trust in the Future

The trust has worked hard to build professional relationships and strong foundations based on trust and respect. Already the impact is evident and the motivation amongst all staff and partners to keep building the trust is strong. Heather Sutton, Head teacher at Four Oaks Primary reflects, “There is no doubt that the outcomes for children are tangible. There is so much more the trust can achieve. This is just the beginning. The future is exciting and opportunities are endless.” Moving forward the trust will build on maximising relationships between the partners and increasing the impact of the trust on parents and the wider community.

Head teachers from Birmingham’s first Co-operative Trust are in the driving seat, facing the challenges and opportunities presented by the changing educational landscape together. The trust has been awarded a Leading Aspect Award in recognition of the impact of the wide range of collaborative working taking place.

Vicky Hewitson is Strategic Business Manager for the Trust. She may be contacted at [email protected]

36

PrimaryFirst

The longer I have been a leader the more I realise what a complex role it is. I have attended courses and read books about effective leadership and trialled different strategies in my aim to be the best headteacher I can, but I find myself always coming back to the idea that just being myself has to be at the heart of what I do.

Having now been a Headteacher for eighteen years I have seen the constant change and initiatives that schools are regularly asked to implement. However, through all of this time there are certain principles that I have tried to keep at the heart of

the way in which I lead and manage the two schools that I have had the privilege to be head of.

I feel very strongly that every child should have a broad and rich curriculum to motivate and engage them in meaningful learning and that to be a good learner and teacher, risk taking has to be at the heart of the school culture. For change to be truly effective there needs to be a limited number of clear priorities to allow teachers time to embed them in their normal classroom practise. These priorities can then be built on year on year.

I am currently the headteacher of Windmill Primary School in Oxford and

in 2007, when I took on the headship, the school had an order to improve from Ofsted. Very soon after starting at the school it became apparent that the root of the key issues relating to poor behaviour and low attainment was a dull and uninspiring curriculum which, despite meeting all of the expectation of the national curriculum, was disjointed and unimaginative.

When attainment is low it is all too easy to set a school improvement plan with targets aimed at increasing the amount of literacy and numeracy that the children do, which in turn narrows the wider curriculum opportunities that the children have access to. At

The Need for Unhurried TimeBy Lynn Knapp

Windmill we decided to take a risk and adopt an alternative approach looking at how to increase the wider curriculum opportunities that we were offering and give the children opportunities to apply their learning in a wider context. The curriculum quickly became our key focus for improvement and a clear vision for the future was set with parents, staff and children. Our motto became Achievement through Creativity, Community and Challenge and this is what we set out to achieve.

As a leader I strongly believe that leading by example is the most effective way to get staff on board with changes that you want to make. The morale of the staff was very low following the poor Ofsted report and encouraging staff to take risks with their teaching was a challenge for some. We adopted a project based approach to the curriculum content with an active learning approach. My deputy and I spent a lot of our time working alongside staff, modelling an alternative approach to teaching which gave them the confidence to have a go themselves. At the same time we were very fortunate to become a Change school with Creative Partnerships which gave us access to a range of creative practitioners to work with the children on projects that they helped to design and lead. These projects, although taking time from the formal numeracy and literacy lessons gave the children the chance to apply their skills in a problem solving context and the teachers the opportunity to assess their understanding and application of key skills. Although the funding for Creative Partnerships is no longer available, we have continued to ensure that the children all have the opportunity to work with creative partners each year as we have seen the positive impact on the children’s motivation and self-confidence making this a clear priority. Regular school visits to museums, galleries and places linked to each project are built into the curriculum planning as are regular visitors to our school.

We have also made sure that as many children as possible get to take part in sporting matches and tournaments ranging from football to tag rugby to gymnastics and dance festivals. The children also regularly have the chance to take part in musical events that are taking place in Oxfordshire. In a recent project a group of young musicians worked with two members of the folk rock band Bellowhead to learn to play a traditional Morris dancing musical accompaniment linked to a local Oxford Morris dancer William Kimber. Twenty four children from Year 4, under the instruction of a local Morris dancer learnt the Bean Planting dance and together the children performed in Oxford to open the Oxfordshire Folk Festival. Alongside this, the children learnt about the local Kimber family and their links with Morris

dancing, a real bit of local history. Again, all of these things take the children out of the classroom, but we have not seen anything but a positive impact on the children’s progress and attainment. There is always the dilemma of whether children should be missing timetabled numeracy and literacy lessons, especially in year 6 where the pressure for increased SATs results year on year is always at the forefront of our minds. However we have decided that the opportunities that the children get from these extended opportunities actually increase attainment rather than reduce it.

Throughout our journey at Windmill to move the school from requiring improvement to its current rating of good I was sometimes challenged about the approach we had taken to raising standards. A couple of staff were fearful that the less formal approach would have a negative impact on pupil progress and in turn reflect poorly on them as teachers. However by pairing these staff with other more confident teachers they were able to go and observe in classrooms where active, rather than passive learning was taking place. In these classrooms they were able to observe that pupils’ engagement with learning was high, behaviour was much improved and that the children were making good progress. This gave them the confidence to “let go” and give more of the learning process over to the children. I believe that building a team of staff who know that there is mutual support for each other and that no one is judged badly for asking for help is fundamental to constantly moving our school forward. The improvements in our data were enough to offset any challenges that I got from the LA advisers who were monitoring the school.

This may all seem a very relaxed approach to leadership but everything that we do is rooted in constant evaluation and analysis of the impact on the children’s learning and what we have seen is year on year improvement in our attainment and progress data with 100% of the children making at least expected progress in reading, writing and maths in 2014.

In an educational system where there are constant pressures on us to do more, I strongly believe that we mustn’t allow the experiences that build self -confidence and a love of learning to be pushed out of the curriculum. Instead I think we should look at the potential they have to strengthen the learning process which in turn raises attainment and accelerates progress.

Lynn Knapp is the head teacher of the Windmill Primary School in Oxfordshire. The school has been chosen as the venue for NAPE’s annual conference on the 24th April 2015.

37

I am not entirely sure that Tony Eaude considers himself to be a member of the blob. However, his book like so many, if not all, publications which are penned by academics runs totally counter to the diehard views of politicians of all the major parties. The credibility gap between the legislators and the corpus of educational knowledge and skill is now a mile wide and there seems no immediate prospect of

closing it. I hope that, at very least, a vague sense of unease is beginning to enter the political mind since it is deeply worrying to have such a disconnection between parliament and our most expert practitioners.Trainers of teachers whether engaged in initial training in schools or in universities should have the book firmly on their required reading list. It is the first serious attempt to outline the characteristics of successful primary teaching as distinct from the treadmill of preparing for secondary school examination success.

There is a perfect match between the findings of research and the author’s judgement culled from years of experience gained as teacher and head teacher working in the primary sector.

The book can be commended also for experienced teachers undertaking advanced courses or studying for a second teaching degree. As Tony Eaude emphasises, teaching young children is a highly complex business and the reader’s prior experience will enable a productive yet unspoken dialogue between writer and reader which can help to illuminate the complexity.

There is a group of colleagues, they work for Ofsted, who are often engaged in assessing the quality of primary teaching and all too often the inspector is allowed no more than the space of a lesson before the assessment is made. This review suggests that the book could be usefully considered when inspectors are reviewing their own professional development . The result could well be more accurate assessments and in the longer term, who knows, a major reconsideration of the entire and flawed edifice of the Ofsted operation.

How Do Expert Primary Class teachers Really Work? By Tony Eaude Publisher, Critical Publishing ISBN: 978-1-909330-01-6

Learning Resources Celts v Romans - Books 1 and 2 By Conor to Stephen Kerensky Publisher, Bright Pen ISBN 978-07552-1091-6 ISBN 978-0-7552-1618-5

Noodle Kids By Jonathon Sawyer Publisher, Quarry Books ISBN 978-1-59253-963-5

Reviews by John Coe

Top quality books for the primary school library. Stephen Kerensky’s books are not only a gripping read for older juniors, they are carefully researched and historically accurate. They can contribute much to the children’s study of our Celtic and Roman antecedents. Children who bring other cultures to add to the richness of our classrooms will gain a great deal from the

books’ insights into the fabric of community life into which they are growing up.

If partner primary and secondary schools are seeking joint studies which bridge the move from year 6 to year 7 they will find Book1 admirable as a basis for a project bringing history, geography and English together over the final primary term and Book 2 similarly over the first term in the new school. The children’s transition from school to school will be greatly helped.

There was a time, a golden time, when no key stage 1 classroom was without a cooker and children had the great pleasure of cooking delicious things to eat while at the same time learning sound stuff related to the core and even the wider curriculum. I wish it was otherwise but I know of only one primary school, Treehouse in Cholsey,

Oxfordshire where children and parents can be found together cooking. You might like to give them a call sometime on 01491 651001, they will be delighted to welcome you but be warned, you may find yourself making pastry ten minutes after walking through the door.

Noodle Kids is a splendidly produced recipe book which should certainly have a cherished place in every primary school library.

Written for families with young children, how should we use it in school today? Don’t tell me everyone has got their head down learning 12 x 12 = 144, there must be time for children to live a little. My suggestion is that you choose a recipe for homework each week. Best to give a few days’ notice since shopping for the ingredients is part of the learning process. Then parent and child can get together in the family kitchen. The results will be eaten rather than marked and, for the first time ever, the old excuse, “The dog ate my homework” might actually be true.

The book was first published in America but we shouldn’t hold that against it, There’s not a hamburger in sight and all the recipes for noodle dishes are quite healthy and will contribute only minimally to the size of our children’s waistlines. And if you are thinking a touch nostalgically about those cookers in every classroom -- don’t worry they are bound to return one day. That’s the way the world works.

38

Professor Leonard Marsh

It is with sadness that we report the death of Leonard

Marsh. Beyond question he played a major role in

the evolution of the modern primary school through

his training of teachers at Goldsmiths’ College and as

Principal of the Bishop Grosseteste College. He and his

colleagues were instrumental in providing us with many

of the finest teachers of the post war generation. In

1980 he led many friends in establishing the National

Association for Primary Education and he became the

association’s first chairman.

His epitaph is taken from Alongside the Child, a book

celebrating the creativity of young children which he

wrote in 1970.

“The problem with various schemes concerned with the

reconsideration of ‘subjects’ or ‘forms of knowledge’

is that they fail to take account of the essential and

already established personal integration of the young

child’s life. So many adults are at present concerned

with elaborate schemes for integrating a situation that

is, from the child’s point of view, already integrated!

It is this understanding of the experience of the child

that determines the nature of the teacher’s evaluation

--- rather than a balancing of subject material or

establishment of a hierarchical scheme of skills. We do

not begin with lists of subjects, but rather with the child’s

relationship with his or her world.”

Leonard Marsh’s words are timeless, primary

teachers will find them as relevant today as when

they were first written.

Leonard Marsh, teacher, born 23 October 1930; died 3 October 2014

39