Primary Science Q uality Mark hub leader training part two

1. Primary Science Quality Mark hub leader trainingpart two SLC London July 7th 2010

2. Programme 9.30 Sharing feedback 10.15 PSQM website- what next? 10.45 Break 11.00 Supporting reflective practice 12.30 Lunch 1.15 Reviewing submissions 2.15 Autumn schools’ training session 2.45 Recruitment for 2011 3.15 Close

3. Sharing feedback - 1 Jan- April 2010 41 Hubs launched/ 229 number of schools QA Advisory group met January 2010 Pilot phase 2 submissions and review Award event

4. QA of hub training • Nearly all hubs visited- remaining few will be visited on the day 2 • PSQM team was there to learn, help out and quality assure • Overall - an extremely rewarding experience for all concerned • Most schools have got some external funding for PSQM • Many hub leaders met teachers they had never interacted with before • The number of schools in a hub ranges from 1-11 • Mostly whole day training • The most effective training days involved the participants experiencing and taking ownership of the activities and the criteria • Training days delivered according to the primary/secondary background of the hub leader and their awareness of the local needs • All of the schools had moved on in their understanding from the beginning of the session • The area that needs the most work on is the website and its use • Some hub leaders still need to return their feedback to the PSQM team

5. Sharing feedback - 1 Jan- April 2010 41 Hubs launched/ 229 number of schools QA Advisory group met January 2010 Pilot phase 2 submissions and review Award event

7. Sharing feedback - 1 Jan- April 2010 41 Hubs launched/ 229 number of schools QA Advisory group met January 2010 Pilot phase 2 submissions and review Award event

15. Sharing feedback - 2 Feedback comments positive and negative on: PSQM organisation including website PSQM content PSQM local arrangements Compile a FAQ list for website

16. PSQM website http://www.psqm.org.uk

17. Break

18. PSQM – learning from the past and for the future The best PSQM submissions combine pragmatic subject management with reflective leadership A way to future proof science subject leaders in a less centralised culture, supporting them to make wise professional decisions rather than follow national formulas

19. Supporting reflective practice – 1Thoughtful action planning • How can we help teachers to write effective action plans? • What is a good PSQM action?

20. Two models for supporting effective action planning SMART targets (Mawby et al) • Specific • Measurable • Achievable • Realistic • Time related Effective CPD model (Adey et al) • Relevant to need • Sustained • Collaborative • Embedded in culture of school • Career linked

22. Giving feedback on action plans- 1 How will these be identified? Will they be shared beyond the SMT? Will budget be allocated? Report won’t be necessary- include copy of relevant bits of SDP in core docs and hyperlink to evidence of implementation and impact in other docs. What happens when? Will need short reflection on on-going impact of actions Good to show your role and Prof Dev

23. Giving feedback on action plans - 2 How will you ensure that science is talked about? What support will you and other teachers need to ensure this happens? How will you evidence this? When will these things happen? Who will do them? Is this indicated as an action? What agencies?

24. Giving feedback on action plans- 3 • What feedback would you give to these teachers on their action plans? • Your aim is for them to identify actions that they will be able to • Evidence • Reflect on impact on quality of primary science • How does this influence the training you provide?

25. Lunch

26. Supporting reflective practice – 1 Given the nature of teaching, professional development and learning should never stop. Indeed, the process of reflection feeds a constructive spiral of professional development and competence. This should be both personally fulfilling for teachers and, but also lead to a steady increase in the quality of the education which is offered to children. (Pollard 1997)

27. Supporting reflective practice – 2 • PSQM is characterised by its developmental and formative approach. • Submission should not be a summative description of actions ticked off, but a truly evaluative statement of impact of actions on quality of science across the school. • This requires a significant level of professional reflection by the subject leader.

28. Supporting reflective practice - 3 Stenhouse (1975) defined three critical characteristics of what he called the ‘extended professionalism’ • the commitment to systematic questioning of one’s own teaching as a basis for development • the commitment and skills to study one’s own teaching • the concern to question and to test theory in practice . 

29. Reflective writing - 1How to move from the descriptive to the reflective? Uses evidence to analyse impact against intended impact and also unexpected outcomes at institutional and personal level. Relates evaluation to broader issues and also challenges own assumptions. Next steps clearly outlined. Describes what happened and why, supported by evidence which has been carefully selected and annotated. Beginning to analyse impact that actions have had on colleagues and children, with some reference to intended impact. Some reference to future. Uses evidence to analyse impact of actions on colleagues, children and self, with clear reference to original intended impact. Some self – questioning evident. Next steps identified.

30. Reflective writing - 2

31. Reflective writing - 3

32. Reflective writing - 4 Read some extracts from pilot submissions. • What support would you give these teachers to enable them to • be more reflective? • write in a way that can be more accurately and quickly reviewed? • What questions would you ask? • How does this influence the training you provide?

33. Reviewing submissions – 1 • Are all the core documents there? • Is the reflection under each criteria or in one document (section E)? • Are additional evidence documents hyper- linked? • PSQM Steve\psqm examples\downloads\woodside_1 • ..\..\submissions april 2010\28th April 2010\BUCKS\bronze review document WOODSIDE JUNIOR SM JT 280410.doc

35. Reviewing submissions - 2 Read one complete pilot submission. • Is the evidence there? Does it meet the criteria? • Complete the review form. • Think about • What are the implications for you as a trainer? • What are the implications for you as a reviewer?

36. PSQM submissions PSQM examples

37. The next PSQM hub training session Suggested programme 9.30 How has it gone so far? Sharing action plans (participants bring own) 10.30 Break 10.45 Using the web site 11.30 Developing reflective practice 12.30 Lunch 1.15 Writing a reflection 1.45 Types of evidence 2.30 Next steps for you 3.15 Close

38. PSQM 2011 recruitment Timeline: • September- promotion of PSQM to schools (local, SLC regions and HQ) • December 2010 /January 2011- new training of hub leaders • April 2011– start of year 2 of national roll out Materials: • Letter to schools • PSQM fliers • Intro PPT on website • Case studies from year 1  Marketing • ASE and SLC plus NAIGS, SCORE ..\..\marketing\Primary Science Quality Mark- recruitment and update presentation.pptx Expressions of interest being received year round at ASE HQ All schools need to .....

39. Any further questions?