The long road to Chartered Teacher

I don’t know what to write about following a read through this week’s TESS. Should it be Fiona Hyslop’s thoughts on the Chartered Teacher programme, or the continuing discussions surrounding aCfE and the exam reform plans.

Given my current time pressures (only 7 days to Module 1 deadline!!) I’m not sure I can even manage a coherent discussion on even just one of these! However, I don’t think I can really let the CT article pass without a mention.

I wasn’t able to make it to the CT conference, but it sounds as if the Minister made these comments there. She was responding to the Report of the Chartered Teacher Review Group, published online on the same day as the comments were made. The review group made a number of recommendations:
- That the GTCS should, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, review the SCT and the CT modular route format.
- To be eligible to embark on the CT scheme a teacher must be at the at the top of the main grade pay scale, be fully registered with the GTCS and have maintained a CPD portfolio, which itself must include robust, validated evidence of good classroom practice. The GTCS will issue guidelines on the construction of a portfolio.
- All stakeholders should actively promote the CT scheme.
- All providers should review and re-submit their programmes to the GTCS to ensure that an appropriate proportion of validated school based evidence is a requirement of the programme.
- Headteachers should continue to discuss and agree with CTs, and those following the modular programme, the duties from Annex B of TP21 that they should perform. These tasks should be appropriate to their sector, experience and related to the SCT.
- Headteachers should ensure that CTs are allowed to link their CT modular work with their annual 35 hour CPD activities.
- The Scottish Government should take steps to routinely capture information on the impact of CTs in school. This should cover impact in its broadest possible terms and include the views of colleagues, pupils and parents.
- A teacher who embarks on the CT scheme should inform their Headteacher of this.
- CTs and those working towards CT status should ensure that their portfolio is benchmarked against the SCT for the purposes of the PRD process.
- Local authorities should ensure that locally agreed procedures are in place to ensue that schools monitor, as with all teachers, that their CTs are continuing to meet the SCT.
- The GTCS should close access to the accreditation route in 2008 as originally planned but also ensure that arrangements are put in place to assess those participants currently on the route within a stated timescale.

Obviously, there’s a lot in here - too much for little old me to digest! One aspect that does catch my eye however is the recommendation that the entry criteria be strengthened to include “a CPD portfolio, which itself must include robust, validated evidence of good classroom practice.” I appreciate that this has come from the variety of portfolios reaching the GTCS, but in many ways isn’t this the point of module 1? I do hope that this doesn’t go too far. Yes, you should be a good teacher prior to embarking on the course - but why would I be paying hundreds of pounds to learn how to gather robust and valid evidence if I already knew how to do this!?!

Ms Hyslop’s reaction is of much more consequence than my own. She expressed “frustration and disappointment” with the report and is pushing for senior colleague endorsement for entry to the programme. She also states that CTs should regard their status as a “school-wide” resource, not purely a personal accomplishment. I’m not sure what the outcome of the first of these suggestions would be. Would they merely check/validate that you are a “good teacher”? Or would they form some sort of quasi-selection process? If so, would I have been allowed to embark on this? By what criteria could someone bar you entry to this self-funded Masters programme??

I find the second of these most perplexing. By the very nature of the Masters programme, one must become a school-wide resource. This is partly due to the standards themselves, which require a contribution to the whole school. But this is also driven by the nature of the course work and discussions which follow from it. Since starting the course I have been extremely motivated to become a school-wide resource, and I’ve not earned one penny extra for my efforts yet. And before you say it, I am not alone. I have yet to meet a CT or someone working towards CT status who sits in their classroom with a smug smile of satisfaction on their face. That is not the nature of the people who fork out both the time and money to complete the course or in the nature of the course itself.

Obviously, these opinions stem from my own limited experience. Please feel free to correct/enlighten me…

I attended the East Lothian Target Conference this morning in Musselburgh. We were there to discuss the nature of literacy and consider what we already do, and could do, to target literacy in East Lothian. There were lots of outcomes from this morning.

Firstly, we got to hear from Matthew Fitt, the author working with Itchy Coo. It was great to hear Matthew speak with passion about the Scots language - although a little uncomfortable to be up pointing to ma ned and gieing ma bahookie a slap! Hard not to join in when there are so many enthusiastic primary school teachers in the room!! As an outsider I’m quite fascinated by the Scots language and love learning the words. For example, I was totally flummoxed when a pupil asked me recently if the graph I was asking him to draw should be muckle.

The rest of the morning was spent in groups discussing what it means to literate and what we can do to promote literacy. This was fascinating on two counts. I discovered that literacy is not as simple a term as it first appears. Is it simply the ability to read and write? Or does it also encompass one’s ability to communicate orally? Does reading body language count? What about emotional literacy? In addition to the discussion, it was also really interesting to speak to people who work in other sectors. As well as us teachery folk there were also NHS staff, police, QIOs, outreach, librarians, parents and a pupil (brave child)! The opportunity to meet and discuss issues with colleagues and stakeholders from other sectors must have been on many peoples’ evaluations at the end of the day, I know it was on mine.

On a different note, my mind was also slightly preoccupied today with the notion that what we are trying to do here has so many similarities to what was going on in the Caprivi Region of Namibia when we were there. Literacy is their greatest challenge to learning and so many of the comments really resonated with my experiences of working there on behalf of VSO. I made a list of the similarities:
- The literacy levels of parents is key to the success of the pupils
- There are many barriers between us as professionals and those parents most in need of support, and it is very difficult to engage those most vulnerable.
- One of these barriers is childcare. Parents here struggle to attend training as they have other children to look after, just like in Namibia.
- Getting the community to actively engage in the life of the school is challenging, and becomes more so as pupils move up through the years to High School.
- And on the notion of language, Caprivians are desperately trying to ensure that all lessons are taught in English as opposed to their various mother tongues. Meanwhile Matthew is busy championing the return of the Scots’ mother tongue to the classroom. A lesson for the future for the Caprivians I think.

I know in many ways it shouldn’t surprise me that we are all so similar, but for some reason it does.

I’ve just been in to Moray House this morning to discuss my progress with my essay on Curriculum for Excellence and Teacher Professionalism with my tutor. I’m so pleased that I’ve chosen this topic as it’s so topical that I can’t help but think and read about it! I’m even more pleased that I didn’t get laughed out of the room for what I’ve produced so far!!

However, the reason I’m posting is that I’m really getting sucked into this blogging malarky. Before I went into Uni this morning I had a read of Jaye’s post on Sex Education in schools, which really resonated with me. And when I got home, Don had posted a reply to my comments on his blog regarding the Curriculum for Excellence and its implementation (to which Ewan had already replied). Quite a fruitful (and not very taxing) bit of CPD for a Saturday morning - discussion with a teacher in another school, an LTS National Adviser and the Director for Education for the council I work for!! Not only that, but these last two conversations have been relevant to my module 1 essay

I don’t know why I ever doubted it!

Spooky…I was just writing about my own perception of confusion regarding Curriculum for Excellence just the other day. And now it’s front page in the Scotsman apparently.

Although the groups warning the government seem to be primarily, and predictably, the unions and the independent schools - it is weird for me to reading the very sentiments I was expressing in a newspaper I wouldn’t normally read!!

I’m particularly interested in the following statement:
“Just three months away from being taught in thousands of classrooms, the Curriculum for Excellence is desperately underfunded and at risk of being lost in a haze of vagueness and ignorance”

The reason my blogging rate has slowed recently is that I am trying to string together an essay along the lines of ‘Curriculum for Excellence and Teacher Professionalism’ so my brain is full of this at the minute. So much so, that I don’t know what I think right now, so I wont write any more tonight.

Interesting though.

I’ve just got back from a free CPD event at the lovely Dalhousie Castle Hotel organised by EIS and Midlothian. The event was very well organised by Vicky Wallace as the Midlothian EIS Learning Rep (apparently East Lothian doesn’t have a multi-establishment equivalent!)

We were treated to the presence of the EIS President, Kirsty Devaney and received presentations from Elisabeth Ritchie of HMIe and Tom Hamilton of the GTCS.

I’m quite surprised how much I found out in such a short space of time. Elisabeth put this whole HGIOS in to perspective for me as I’d never really got my head round it as a relative newcomer. More importantly, she showed us the Journey to Excellence website (or HGIOS 5), which is really impressive and provides much food for thought. For example, have a look at this brief discussion of the assessment of thinking skills from Carol McGuinness:
DownloadAssessing thinking skills - Carol McGuinness

There is a lot more on the site as well - go and have a look!

Tom talked to us about the GTCS’s professional registration and recognition schemes - I’d not actually come across this recognition scheme! How’s that for someone currently fretting over an essay on professionalism!!!

It just shows you what you can find out from sticking your name down for these free CPD events which come along. Perhaps it also suggests that we could do with an equivalent to Vicky in East Lothian?

Is anyone else surprised with the general confusion surrounding a curriculum for excellence? The Curriculum for Excellence website states: “Scotland is currently pursuing its biggest education reform for a generation.” I’m not sure that we’ve all grasped this!

We’ve all heard about it, we can all kind of name the four capacities (although as far as I can gather most can only ever name three at a time) - but are we really engaging with it? How many people are reading the experiences & outcomes and completing the online questionnaires? How many schools (particularly secondary) are currently rewriting their curricula to prepare for the implementation in August 2009?

I’ve heard it said that very few returns have made it to LTS since the experiences and outcomes have been released for consultation, and what does this say about us as a profession? Although I can see the argument here, I also think you can turn this round - what does it say about LTS’s implementation of this hugely important piece of curriculum reform?

Why are so many teachers unsure of what is going on and what they should be doing?

I got myself into wee bit of a discussion recently over at Ewan’s blog.

It’s been a question that has been preoccupying me for a while: what to do about a lack of IT resources in school? (1) Make the best of what we’ve got and work around the difficulties without complaining (2) Make the best of what we’ve got but complain about the lack of suitable access (3) Give up due to the lack of suitable access.

I reckon most teachers could allocate themselves into these groups. I have to admit that I aspire to (2) but a lot of the time I verge into (3).

However, some teachers (such as Jaye) strongly feel that “we don’t live in an ideal world, and I’m afraid sometimes we have to make the best of what we’ve got” (I am hesitant in quoting you Jaye, but having read your blog I do get the feeling that this does briefly summarise your approach to this issue). I’d suggest that this approaches my (1) from above.

I have a problem with this argument. I do intend to try to make the best of what Glow has to offer - more than that - I’m really looking forward to it! However, from a personal perspective, I do believe that the lack of suitable access will severely restrict its usefulness to my learners. If I feel this way, should I not say so? I would argue that ‘complaining’ about the lack of access to PC’s is an argument on behalf of Glow, not against it.

I feel that Glow will not be a success just because it has been produced by LTS, or because teachers must use ICT in their lessons as part of their GTCS registration, or because it is a part of AiFL or aCfE. As has been shown with many initiatives in the past, they have to grab the imaginations of the grass roots to succeed - they cannot be directed from above.

I think Glow will be a much bigger success if the barriers to hardware are removed from non-IT classes. I appreciate that in the current climate that this is unlikely to be resolved - but does this mean I’m a complainer for saying so?

Ooh, I was grumpy on Thursday. Although I’m still a bit annoyed that I might have to rethink my plans, I’ve decided that as this is a very narrow, personal and quite negative way of reflecting on some very wide ranging proposals.

Gordon has helpfully summarised the proposals. I’d like to use this summary as a frame for my thoughts:

“1. New qualifications in literacy and numeracy will be developed at SCQF levels 3, 4 and 5. Pupils will take these in S4 or later and will include a mixture of internal and external assessment.”
Although clearly literacy & numeracy skills are essential for our learners, does creating new assessments mean that these skills will be improved? There is a drive from CfE to embed these skills more explicitly across the curriculum and perhaps this is an attempt to ensure this happens? Does this replace traditional Maths & English qualifications, or is this as well as?

“2. Standard Grade and Intermediate 1 and 2 qualifications will be replaced by a new set of qualifications at SCQF levels 4 and 5. Standard Grade foundation level (SCQF level 3) will be replaced by Access 3.”
This is the most eye catching proposal. I’m finding it hard to objectively reflect on this, and I suppose this is partly due to the fact that I have no idea what these new qualifications will look like. It is clear to me that these qualifications do need rationalised and a rethink is in order, but how far will it go? Will the learning outcomes be dramatically different, and will they be successfully reflected in the assessment materials? I suppose only time will tell. So, it appears that I actually agree that change is necessary - I just don’t like that it’s happening now!

“3. Highers are seen as the “gold standard” of Scottish education. All national qualifications, including Higher and Advanced Higher will, however be reviewed to ensure consistency with curriculum for excellence.”
This is probably good news. It’d be even more scary if these were being replaced at the same time, and it would be frustrating if they weren’t tweaked to fit in with the changes taking place below.

“4. More flexibility will be embedded in the system. This is likely to include a winter diet of examinations and the most able pupils bypassing lower levels.”
Interesting…In my limited experience, flexibility costs money - primarily through smaller class sizes. Although great in principle, are schools equipped to offer real flexibility? If not, how will this be resolved?

“There was a very clear indication that pupils would not take qualifications until S4 at the earliest except for exceptional circumstances. It was also noted that new qualifications would be likely to be implemented in 2012/2013, ie for those pupils currently in P6.”
I’m not sure what is meant by this S4 thing. This is when the majority of pupils sit their exams anyway. Does it mean that pupils wont formally embark on these qualifications until S4? Does this mean that the traditional S1/S2 is being extended into S3? If so, what impact does this have on a school like mine which decided a few years ago that S2 wasn’t working so they now start their Standard Grade/Intermediate 1/Access 3 courses in S2 instead of S3?

2012/13? - that leaves us with another three years of the current system. I suppose that this means that we should have a fair idea where this is all heading in two years time (and we already have an idea from the Curriculum for Excellence experiences & outcomes). So, I suppose if I develop our activities in line with CfE, they will probably transfer across to the new system - and maybe help us to contribute to the consultation process?

So overall, I think I’m in favour of this. It has been on the horizon since I arrived back in Scotland as a teacher, and in many ways it’s exciting that it’s happening now. However, change is always threatening and uncomfortable - but it’s also inevitable.

I’ve just seen this on the BBC News website:

Although this threat has been there for some time, my heart sank when I saw it. When these initiatives & changes come along, I find it quite hard to commit to putting in extra effort to update and improve courses which could well be in the bin very soon. To finally see Standard Grade’s card being marked is particularly disappointing for me personally. Due to the current “efficiency savings” we are having to review our departmental resources as we will not be able to afford the photocopying in the future. I had decided to use this as an opportunity to try to develop & improve the course to encompass the Curriculum for Excellence experiences & outcomes and to incorporate activities which are based on ideas such as active learning and social constructivism. In fact, I have started the process of collecting some baseline data for this project this week. This would obviously be a very long and demanding task - probably taking nearly two years to complete.

I am now faced with the prospect of carrying out two years worth of developmental work (and encouraging my department to join in) with the axe hanging over my (our) head(s) - so to speak.

I know the new courses will probably not be a million miles away from what we currently have and that they (probably) will incorporate Curriculum for Excellence experiences & outcomes [for some reason this isn't actually mentioned in the article - surely this is what is driving this change!?!?] - but this doesn’t help with my demotivation. I really struggle to go the extra mile when I’m not sure of the long-term plan.

Am I being unreasonable?

I attended the Scholar conference last Friday at Heriot Watt Uni. It was quite interesting to share ideas on how to use Scholar effectively from people who have used it much more than I have. In fact, I think the whole day was perfect for someone like me - a newcomer. The two main themes of the day were Scholar (obviously) and the Curriculum for Excellence. I get the feeling from many Scottish teachers that they have heard about these two things A LOT - but I know very little about them both.

1. Scholar: I love it. It’s such a fantastic resource and I only wish I could use it more. It’s hard to believe that there is an online and paper-based resource which perfectly matches the course. Why can’t I use it more? There doesn’t seem to be much of a culture amongst the kids of using Scholar in my school, so they don’t go online without lots of encouragement. Also, I find it difficult to incorporate Scholar into lessons with the pupils actually using it themselves. This normally involves booking computers in another part of the school and walking them there and back - difficult to dip in and out of Scholar as suggested at the conference.

2. Curriculum for Excellence: What is it all about? Brian Boyd spoke about Curriculum for Excellence and Scholar’s place within it. What was amazing to me was how different CfE sounded from Brian compared to what I’d already heard. I don’t know a huge amount about it being a newcomer. In fact, not much more than the four competencies which are on a wall in nearly every classroom. The impression I had up until now was that CfE wasn’t going to involve massive changes and was all about developing what we already do well and tweaking some things that need tweaking. Having listened to Brian (who was in some way involved with the creation of CfE) I’ve now heard a very different view. His view seems to involve a much more cross-curricular theme-based approach to secondary education with a very very different approach to assessment - i.e. a radical shift away from Highers. As he said a number of times during his address - “will the CfE actually be a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic?”

So although I’m more confused about a few things, I feel that this is the point of a conference. You should leave a conference with questions, not answers - that’s what training is for.