Teach-Primary-Issue-19.1

processes we all use to make these myriad decisions, both big and small? I propose that we make this part of our everyday practice in schools, and work together to really understand the why behind the what. TP speaking, there is a way to scaffold this. To support it in our school, I created a four-step approach that teachers use in planning meetings, and in all comms from the quality of education team to teaching staff (see fig. 1). Using these questions, we can ensure that any actions we take are aligned with what our pupils actually need. Tell me why This process also has wider implications for how senior leadership teams within schools can quality assure what’s going on in classrooms. For example, if you’ve made a decision using this process, even if it slightly deviates from the school’s official policy, you can show that you’ve made a valid decision, and thought it through fully. It’s like showing your working. Nobody knows your class better than you do, so this can be a useful scaffold both for documenting why you’ve done something, but also to use as a guide when actually making the decision, to ensure you’ve considered every angle. It might sound a little bit daunting (nobody wants more paperwork), but even if you use this as a loose mental structure, it can actually lead to exciting and engaging professional conversations about how and why decisions are made. This, in turn, can help us move away from generic feedback and tick-box policies and towards more thoughtful and meaningful collaboration that benefits everyone. And if that wasn’t enough, the main outcome of this process is far more important: to have a shared language with which to explain why we do things a certain way, and a method for undertaking self-reflection. Whilst traditional CPD methods such as INSET days and after-school sessions seem to be the norm in most schools, when I reflect on my own development as a teacher, and that of teachers I really admire, no-one really uses those forms of CPD to show how they got better. If we’re honest, most of us spend the hour thinking about the reports we’ve got to write and the stack of marking on our desks! Instead, the teachers who have developed, improved and cemented their practice over time have done so through a combination of thinking about their own teaching and talking to others about theirs in informal settings like staffrooms (and articles like these). By focusing on phronesis, we can grow genuine school cultures and context-specific ways of working, without relying too much on bolt-on CPD. Wouldn’t it be better to use systems like the one above – mine isn’t the only process out there, you may have your own – to provide opportunities for colleagues across phases, year groups, and subject specialisms to listen to one another and hear about the different thought 5 questions for ref lection 1 What regular actions do you take in the classroom that seem simple but are actually complex when broken down? How did you decide to do things this way, and why? 2 What is your thought process when planning lessons? Does your thinking align with the four-step model? 3 Does your school provide opportunities for informal discussion around lesson planning? 4 Does your school provide opportunities for you to share your thought processes with SLT as part of the feedback process? 5 If you use collaborative planning, to what extent does your year or phase team consider what classrooms actually look like when everything is working well? Claire Harley is a senior leader and history teacher in the East Midlands. researchtoclassroom.com What do I want pupils to learn/do? • Think about the learning that needs to take place What activity is right for this goal? • Choose the right method for achieving your goal • E.g. mini whiteboards to check for understanding What does all pupils participating look like? • In a classroom where all pupils are totally engaged, what does the activity look like? How do I communicate this? • Carefully planned explanations • Explicit explanations at each stage • Narrate positive behaviour Fig 1. 34 | www.teachwire.net