The AchieveAbility Network has pubished the final report of the Report on the East of England Training the Trainers Project. The research report, written by David Crabtree MA, PG.Cert., was endorsed by the AchieveAbility Steering Group and Aimhigher East of England.
The report identify's and investigate's the degree to which the Aimhigher East of England teacher training project achieved its aims and objectives; evaluate the outcomes and to make recommendations for future similar work, for example, the roll-out of the training in other regions. The execuitive summary of the report can be read below and the full report can be downloaded at the bottom of the page.
Executive Summary
This paper sets out to identify and investigate the degree to which the AimHigher East of England teacher training project achieved its aims/objectives; evaluate the outcomes and to make recommendations for future similar work, for example, the roll-out of the training in other regions. It also makes links to other recent findings such as the Report by the Select Committee for Children, Schools and Families, Testing and Assessment (House of Commons, 13 May 2008.)
Within current educational reform and development, inclusion, placing the individual at the heart of the system, and raising achievement are recurring themes. As defined in the Report of the Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review Group: "Put simply, personalised learning and teaching means taking a highly structured and responsive approach to each child's and young person's learning, in order that all are able to progress, achieve and participate. It means strengthening the link between learning and teaching by engaging pupils - and their parents - as partners in learning."
The target group for the AimHigher East of England teacher training project was teachers and their managers from schools and colleges in the same Aimhigher region with a responsibility for the delivery of whole class teaching in the school/college curriculum.
Altogether there were eight regional training events attended by staff from 84 different institutions and one bespoke training event on school premises attended by staff from the host school and nearby schools. The participants included staff from 69 secondary schools and 10 colleges. Many of the participating institutions sent two or more staff and a total of 115 staff participated in training.
Participants reported that there were two quite separate organisational networks. There was a general agreement that teaching and learning support were generally organised within separate organisation ‘silos’ in schools and colleges. This structural division meant that there was very little opportunity for either to impact upon the work of the other.
• Teachers were sympathetic to the idea that it is important to address the learning needs of all the pupils in the class but perceive the organisational requirements of responding to this as a potentially massive burden.
• Teachers are willing to respond to the learning needs of all pupils in the class but tend to have only a limited understanding of learning and learning differences and so do not feel confident in changing their methodology.
• Teachers feel that changes in delivery constitutes ‘risk-taking’ and without explicit senior management support, are often not prepared to take such risks without some sort of safety net.
• It was felt that because only small numbers of pupils with SpLD/learning differences were identified in school and often these were the more severe or those with attendant behavioural difficulties, the practice of inclusive learning would continue to be through support outside whole class teaching in a special unit or section (sometimes called the inclusive learning section).
• Classroom teachers tended to focus their differentiation on those pupils predicted 5 or more GCSEs at grade C or above or those close to this target than those where the school data predicted a lower profile. This created a divisive approach as opposed to an inclusive approach.
• Indicators that may be particularly useful in identifying previously unidentified SpLD pupils are not often used. An example of such an indicator was drawn from CATS information by one interviewee e.g. 15 point difference between the verbal and non-verbal reasoning score at CATs.
• It was recognised that generally schools do not identify pupils with SpLD except the more severe or those with attendant behavioural difficulties.
• The main source of authority on pupil performance in schools comes from pupil tracking data sources; the most quoted in the interviews was the Fisher Family Trust Data (FFTD).
• Interviewees explained that FFTD begins in primary school and follows pupils through to the end of their school career. The basis for the originating index are results in early primary school based tests in which literacy skills play a crucial role.
• FFTD provides an index, or a value to each child and this index follows the child through primary and secondary school and is used to predict performance as well as review progress.
What we already know about SpLD tells us that many of these pupils are amongst the most able and talented. Participants in the project confirmed that many remain unidentified and that some of these pupils will have their true potential masked by the way pupil tracking data is used. The impact of this is to reduce the institutional imperative to identify and support SpLD pupils and respond to their needs within whole class teaching.
Organisationally there are two silos, one for whole class teaching and one for learning support. This creates an institutional barrier between what happens in the classroom and what happens in learning support. This division of whole class teaching in one sphere and learning support in another separate sphere reinforces a traditional concept within education. That is to say, of ‘normal’ learners whose needs can be met in a class all experiencing the ‘same diet’ and those learners (a minority) whose requirements can only be met by specialists and be given a ‘special diet’. Furthermore, when those who require a ‘special diet’ are in class with those having the ‘same diet’, it is perceived by the class teacher that the ‘problem’ is with the child with learning differences. The institutional barrier between what happens in the classroom and what happens in learning support means that institutions may not be making best use of the perspectives of learning support expertise to inform the classroom delivery of teachers.
There have been major advances in our understanding about how the brain operates and the processes of cognition in the past ten years. However, neither initial teacher training nor CPD provide an adequate grounding in how the brain operates, how cognition takes place, what is meant by learning and learning differences. Therefore, teachers are generally without this crucial underpinning knowledge necessary to plan whole class teaching and learning in order to incorporate learning differences within a class. Equally, many managers in education are insufficiently conversant with the underpinning knowledge about learning and learning development necessary to develop a sophisticated approach to managing pupil performance. Consequently some rely too heavily on data alone.
The heavy reliance on data alone linked to secondary school strategies to focus mainly on those predicted to be within of close to the 5 A-C at GCSE, may mean that a whole cohort of learners with the potential to succeed, if their learning needs were appropriately addressed in whole class teaching, are being overlooked.
Only those pupils with a learning difference which could be described as severe are generally being identified in schools and colleges. This concept of severity and discrepancy (from what is perceived as the norm) reinforces the idea that the numbers with a learning difference are small and require help from ‘specialists’ as opposed to mainstream teachers. Schools and colleges need to develop a whole school/college approach to learning which embraces all learners. The identification of those with SpLD needs to be more rigorous and teachers should be supported to bring about the necessary adaptations in the delivery of the curriculum for it to be truly inclusive for all learners. SpLD learners need to be targeted within a whole school/college approach, their potential better measured, interventions need to be addressed holistically and progress monitored accordingly. If less than the generally accepted figure of 10% is being identified, this needs to be picked up as part of the quality cycle.
Targeting requires management of the process of marketing and participation. When considering the target group it is recommended that the focus is at an institution level i.e. an institution is invited to participate with the express aim of developing a contextualised local action research project. Participation would then be attendant upon the school/college being prepared to send to the training the following:
(i) At least one manager responsible for the management of the performance of the curriculum and or/learner achievement.
(ii) At least one representative responsible for whole class learning.
(iii) One person with a responsibility for learning support.
Consideration should then be given about the appropriate method to approach schools and colleges and the resources required to support a local action research project.
