Flipped Learning centres around the use of digital technology, such as video, to provide direct instruction on new concepts outside of the classroom. Students come to lessons having been introduced to the subject already. In theory, this frees up class time for the teacher to focus on other beneficial learning activities.

In the study by NFER and NESTA, maths was used as the subject deploying the ‘flipped’ strategy and Khan Academy resources were accessed. However, don’t think this method will only work (or not) in this specific area. The positives and negatives will apply to other subject areas.

You decide… here are some of the features noted in the nine case-studies:

• Homework time is typically used to deliver new content to prepare students for lessons, as opposed to being used for revision and consolidation.
• Greater use is made of online learning such as videos, presentations and exercises than learning from textbooks and worksheets.
• Teachers spend more time in lessons coaching and facilitating learning and less time providing whole class instruction and demonstration.

Key findings:

Where it worked, there was more time in class for active learning activities, such as:

• practising and applying mathematical knowledge
• individualised coaching support provided by the teacher
• collaborative learning
• whole-class discussion

It encouraged students to:

• take responsibility for their learning
• learn at their own pace
• deepen their knowledge and understanding
• make faster progress than would normally be expected

It is worth noting that  most teachers in the study intended to continue using flipped learning, or aspects of it, as part of a varied repertoire of teaching strategies and to develop its potential further.

These considerations raised by the authors are important:

• Access to computers or mobile devices and Wi-Fi at home needs to be considered. This may involve some consultation with students to gauge their home access.
• When choosing resources, it is important to check to what extent they match the curriculum and topic.
• What about teacher feedback on the activities that students have completed at home and how they have progressed (such as Khan Academy)?
•  Material that is less scaffolded and more complex may be more suitable for revision and extension purposes.
• If the school does not have an embedded homework policy that results in a high level of engagement with homework, schools need to institute this before they embark on flipped learning. Otherwise, schools could consider approaches such as opening up access to computers during break or lunchtime, running a session in a computer suite facilitated by a nonspecialist teacher or teaching assistant, or enabling students to use the online resources during lesson time.
• In addition, parents/carers can be involved to help facilitate the process and help ensure homework is completed
• The attainment level, maturity and ability to work independently of the student group should be considered.
• Teachers in the pilot schools tended to target more able students but this does not need to be the case.

There are more in the Report.

Growing Up in Scotland (GUS):  Scottish Government funded study tracking the lives of two cohorts of children from across Scotland. This report draws together findings from 10 years of analysis of the GUS data to highlight how the study has contributed to the evidence base on children and families in Scotland, in particular on the extent of and how to reduce inequalities in outcomes in the early years.

It is a very clearly presented report that is easy read.

Main Findings:

Even in the early years of a child’s life, there are consistent inequalities, not only in outcomes, but particularly in risk behaviours that we believe have longer-term consequences for health and development. There is considerable inequality that mothers face in the early years. Socio-economically disadvantaged households appear to face a double burden of inequality with the child and the main carer at greater risk of negative health outcomes.

Factors that seem to promote positive outcomes:

• A rich home learning environment can improve cognitive development for all children, regardless of their socio-economic background
• High quality early learning and childcare can help to reduce inequalities in cognitive development
• Being born to an older mother makes children more resilient to a range of negative outcomes.
• Improving the physical and mental health of mothers is likely to have a positive effect on the health and development of their children.
• Supporting parenting skills can help protect against the impact of adversity and disadvantage
• The role of the health visitor, in providing one-to-one advice and support to parents, should be central in the efforts to tackle inequalities in the early years.

Despite being intended only for use in statutory national assessments,  attainment targets and levels were often used for in-school assessment between key stages in order to monitor whether pupils were on track to achieve expected levels at the end of key stages. This distorted the purpose of in-school assessment, particularly day-to-day formative assessment. This had a negative impact on teaching.

Final report of the Commission on Assessment without Levels clearly explains the rationale for scrapping levels.

Have a look at the full report for advice such as:

Evaluating external assessment systems;

” The Commission recognises that many schools may consider using assessment systems that have been developed by external providers. Schools should develop their approach to assessment before considering external assessment systems in order that products can be evaluated according to how they fit with the school’s aims, assessment policy and curriculum.”

This type of advice will help to consider a policy for looking into the increasing number of assessment products available.

There is an interesting commentary on the notion of Mastery in assessment:

“The word mastery is increasingly appearing in assessment systems and in discussions about assessment. Unfortunately, it is used in a number of different ways and there is a risk of confusion if it is not clear which meaning is intended.” Read more on p17 of the Report.

September 2015 sees a new inspection framework.

The main changes are:

• A common inspection framework (CIF) to cover the inspection of maintained schools and academies, further education and skills providers, non-association independent schools and early years providers (including PVIs and childminders).
• Short inspections for maintained schools, academies and further  education and skills providers that were judged good at their last full inspection. These short inspections will be conducted approximately every 3 years. They are likely to be only one day visits.
• All inspectors will be directly employed by Ofsted. Therefore, no more ‘contractors’ involved.

Judgements categories are now:

• Effectiveness of leadership and management
• Quality of teaching, learning and assessment
• Personal development, behaviour and welfare
• Outcomes for children and learners

Watch out for interest in:

• The impact of leaders’ work in developing and sustaining an ambitious culture and vision in the school
• A broad and balanced curriculum
• Safeguarding,  central to every inspection (SMSC – follow ‘Publications’ link above)
• pupils’ outcomes, where inspectors will give most weight to the progress of pupils currently in the school rather than attainment solely judged against nationally published data.

The original Ofsted document ‘Changes to education inspection from September 2015′  has some videos explaining some of the issues. Worth looking at.

Professor John Hattie’s Visible Learning came well before ‘What makes great teaching’ (Sutton Trust). The two should be having a great impact on the way approach our work.

Hattie’s ‘What doesn’t work in Education’ (June 2015) adds important detail to research evidence and goes a long way to explain why some strategies don’t work.

He talks about the Politics of Distraction.

Distraction 1: Appease the parents

Are too many policies aimed at appeasing parents? For example, reducing class sizes is a strategy that pleases parents, teachers and school leaders. Parents see reducing class size as a sure-fire way of more attention being paid to their children. Teachers see it as stress reducing (less marking?) and leaders consider it beneficial to stretching resources. But as Hattie points out, whilst the positive effect of smaller classes does exist, it is very small. Why? Because too many of us rarely change how we teach when we have a smaller class. In fact Hattie’s 2005 work found that we often talk more in a smaller class!

Have a look at fig 4.1 on p11 of the report and note the reading ages of two countries with highest reading ages.

Distraction 2: Fix the infrastructure

One of the major distractions to truly making a difference is the quest for better infrastructure: a more effective curricula, more rigorous standards, more tests and more alternative shaped buildings, etc.

Hattie refers to ‘tinkering with the curriculum’. This is interesting. It is copied directly from p15 of the report:

When you are learning something new, you need a greater proportion of surface to deep thinking, but as you become more proficient, the balance can change to more deep thinking. Consider, for example, the following seemingly sane and sensible teaching programmes privileging deep learning:

• inquiry-based learning;

• individualised instruction;

• matching teaching to styles of thinking;

• problem-based learning;

• whole-language learning; and

• student control over learning.

The average effect-sizes of these programmes are very low (0.31, 0.22, 0.17, 0.15, 0.06 and 0.04 respectively), well below the average of many possible influences of 0.4. It is not that they are not worthwhile programmes. The problem is that too often they are implemented in a way that does not develop surface understanding first. (My bold italics. This is the essence of the work)

The section on buildings is fascinating and easily recognisable. Changing the shape of the teaching space does not lead to us teaching differently. He gives the example of teachers filling open plan spaces with bookcases and trees in pots to create their own ‘walled in spaces’.

Distraction 3: Fix the students

‘During a child’s first five years, there is remarkable brain development. They can learn so much, and there are so many opportunities to enhance their learning. Thus, there has been a focus in many systems on providing early childhood education systems. However, the robustness of classifying students is questionable.’ (p19)

Because of this, vast sums of money are poured into early years. Yet it is pointed out that by the age of 8, it is hard to tell who did/ didn’t have pre-school education.

Distraction 4: Fix the schools

‘A popular solution to counter ‘failing schools’ is to invent new types of schools: charter schools, for-profit schools, beacon schools, free schools, academies, public–private schools – anything other than a [state maintained school]. But, given that the variance in student achievement between schools is small relative to variance within schools, it is folly to believe that a solution lies in different forms of schools. Within a year or so the ‘different’ school becomes just another school, with all the usual issues that confront all schools.’  (p23)

Distraction 5: Fix the teachers

“The system is only as good as the teacher and that teacher standards must be raised.” A well recognised mantra. There is nothing wrong with this but we can’t do it all on our own: we need support,  to collaborate with others in and across schools and to develop expertise This is unlikely without excellent school leaders. Further, supportive and great systems are needed to support and nurture great leaders. “But more often the debate is about …  introducing performance pay and other such distractions.”

The policy group CentreForum has  recommended that pupils’  progress should be the main measure used by the government to judge how England’s primary schools are performing. They have published work for Secondary schools previously.

The report has interesting links with proposals by the Coalition Government.

Plans announced in 2014 state that from 2016, primary schools in England will have two new league tables to replace the current one.

At the moment, floor targets  require 65% of pupils in every primary school to achieve level 4 in the KS2  SATs. However it is expected  that this will be raised to 85%.

Schools that fail to meet this much higher standard will be judged by a measure tracking children’s  progress over time.

A baseline assessment of children will be made in the first half term of their year in Reception. When they get to 11, a measure of how much progress they have made will compared against those with similar baseline scores.

This reflects the content of  Progress Matters in Primary too:   Holding schools to account consistently.

There are some very interesting assertions. The report suggests that by only concentrating on the narrow band of ‘borderline’ attainers, those at either end suffer. This is how I read it:

• The most able are not stretched because they will get the required level without much more input
• Some of the least able will be deemed as not worth spending any more time on because they are unlikely to ‘pass’ anyway

In this report you will also find an idea of what post – 2015 SAT scoring will look like:

“New end-of-Key-Stage assessments to come into effect from the 2015/16 academic year, removing the current system of ‘levels’ to describe bands/ grades of performance. In their place, a ‘scaled score’ will be reported, with 100 signifying the expected standard and higher and lower scores denoting over- and under-performance against that standard, respectively.”  (p9)

These are the headlines:

• Primary schools are getting better, but secondary schools have stalled
• Good leadership is crucial but there aren’t enough good leaders
• The best schools focus on high-quality teaching
• Good teachers are in short supply where they are needed most
• Children from poorer backgrounds are doing better, but still too far behind
• The right school structure is critical (pupils need a structured learning environment where expectations are high)
• Free Schools? Too early to judge, but they succeed or fail for pretty much the same reasons as other types of school

The complete report is here

The Sutton Trust: What makes great teaching

Read this and be well informed, if even a bit confused. Only the headlines are here. It desreves your full attention.

It is based on 200 research projects and points to evidence that identifies what strategies work in the classroom. It also suggests those methods where research finds no evidence that they actually work. There are some surprising things on the second list.

Examples of very effective factors include

• good subject knowledge
• quality of instruction (such as effective questioning and use of assessment)                                No surprises there then

The report (p14) produces Rosenshine’s Principles summarising at least 40 years of research as a good model of ‘instruction’

In outline the ten principles are:
1. Begin a lesson with a short review of previous learning
2. Present new material in small steps, with student practice after
each step
3. Ask a large number of questions and check the responses of all
students
4. Provide models for problem solving and worked examples
5. Guide student practice

6. Check for student understanding
7. Obtain a high success rate
8. Provide scaffolds for difficult tasks
9. Require and monitor independent practice
10. Engage students in weekly and monthly review

Have a look at p17 the Bjork and Bjork examples.

Now, the examples of much less effective methods (p22 onwards)

• over lavish praise
• learners discovering key ideas for themselves
• ability grouping
• use of ‘preferred learning styles’
• active learning is encouraged rather then listening quietly

In many ways this work reflects that done by John Hattie… and there are some who have challenged his findings. Perhaps this report will fuel the debate.

There was consultation on Ofsted’s suggestions for a new framework of inspection to start in September 2015. The consultation ended Dec 5th 2014.

They propose the following changes:

? Proposal 1: a common inspection framework for all early years settings on
the Early Years Register, maintained schools, academies, non-association
independent schools and FE and skills providers. This framework will mean
that the same judgements will apply in each of these remits.
? Proposal 2: introducing shorter inspections for maintained schools,
academies and FE and skills providers that were judged good at their
previous inspection. These short inspections, conducted approximately
every three years, will report on whether or not a provider has maintained
its overall effectiveness but will not provide a full set of graded
judgements.
? Proposal 3: conducting a full inspection of non-association independent
schools within a three-year period. (A non-association independent school is one that doesn’t belong to an association such as ISI, SIS or BSI. These associations carry out their on form of inspection. If your independent school is not in one of these, Ofsted will visit).

It is also proposed that the vast majority of inspections will be led by HMI. As Sir Michael Wilshaw says, inspections “will no longer be outsourced”.

Always best to read the original: Better inspection for all

It is 12 months between the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s ‘Does money affect children’s outcomes?’  Oct 2013

and the

Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission’s ‘Cracking the code: how schools can improve social mobility’   Oct 2014

The JRF quote “There is abundant evidence that children growing up in lower income households do less well than their peers on a range of wider outcomes.”  Several studies are from the USA, but the impact here is parallel. Cognitive development and school attainment appear to be the hardest hit in poorer families. There are strong links to other factors.

‘Cracking the code’ states “Social mobility in the UK is slow and stalling” and suggests that if you are born poor can often lead to a lifetime of poverty. The report cites how some schools do better than others with the same economic background. There is a clear message that schools can make a difference.

The ‘code breaking’ schools have these characteristics:

• Well planned use of pupil premium
• High expectations of every student
• An ‘incessant focus’ on high quality teaching
• Strategies to engage parents (tailored to individuals)
• Preparing students for all aspects of life, not just passing exams