Learning Together, Achieving Together: the collaborative process of CPD

Learning Together, Achieving Together: the collaborative process of CPD Presentation given at the conference: Quality of Education - Teachers’ Professional Training and Development: the EU and the SE European countries. Athens 2-3 June 2003 Tim Brosnan t.brosnan@hampsteadschool.org.uk

Outline This presentation has three main aims, to: • Argue that CPD is a reflective process, not a series of events • Stress that this process needs to be collaborative at all stages • Explicate some innovative school-based CPD partnerships involving teachers at Hampstead school working with pupils; each other; and colleagues from universities

Background: Hampstead School • A Technology College with strong traditions in the cross-curricular use of ICT and the creative arts • ‘More Cricklewood than Hampstead’ • >30% of pupils qualify for free school meals • >40% have English as a second (or third) language • >30% are on the school’s Special Needs register • ~130 (10% of the school population) are refugees • Results well above the average of schools with similar social intakes – in many cases above the 95th percentile (PANDA) – and equal to or above national averages

Background: people and funds • ~1300 pupils aged 11-18 years • 88 full-time and 34 part-time teachers • ‘Investors in People’ status (recently re-designated) • €50,000 annual CPD budget • Only about €500 per FTE teacher • €20,000 for CPD from Technology College money • An additional €700 per FTE teacher in TC departments • Additional substantial contribution from staffing budget (~ €100,000) to fund ‘in-house’ ICT CPD

Hampstead’s approach to CPD • A core, whole-school commitment to being a ‘learning institution’, reflected in Investors In People accreditation (See Staff Development Policy extract 1) • ‘Learning together achieving together’ based on • Reflection • Review • Target Setting • Continuing Challenge and Support • Feedback and Dissemination(See Staff Development Policy extract 2)

Reflection • Continuous personal review of practice • Open discussion of all aspects of the institution at all team meetings, e.g. of • Staff • Heads of Year • Heads of Department • Senior Management Team • Requires confidence (in self, team and institution) to be open and explicit about personal, team and institutional failings

Review Reflection formalised in Annual Reviews of: • Individual teachers (including SMT): against previously agreed personal targets • Departments/Year Teams: against previously agreed school, LEA, and (where appropriate) Technology College targets • School: against School Development Plan and National, LEA and Technology College targets(Staff development policy extract 1)

Target setting • The Annual Review leads to target setting for each individual in three areas: • Personal • Department/Team • School • Each individual has a role to play in all three areas. • Departmental targets are not (just) the responsibility of Heads of Department • School targets are not (just) the responsibility of the Senior Management Team

Support and challenge • Aim is to agree challenging and achievable targets • Their point is to raise the achievement of pupils, teachers, and teams - not to mark out individual teachers, departments or teams as ‘poor’ • Requires and reinforces a school and departmental ethos where colleagues continuously challenge and support each other to raise pupil attainment • Support involves a wide variety of activities (see Staff Development Policy extract 1), including the development of a variety of collaborative learning experiences

Collaborative learning with pupils • Cisco networking course taught by the Community Learning Manager as part of the Technology College programme • Taught ‘off timetable’ at lunchtimes and Friday nights • 16 students, 8 school pupils and 8 teachers • Pupils and teachers also learn together in informal ‘skill sessions’ run in the Independent Learning Centre • Social and ‘school ethos’ impact of this process is far wider than the participating group

Collaborative learning with colleagues • ICT staff have no timetabled classes (other than +16) • They work with colleagues in other departments jointly to plan and teach programmes of study • Costly (~ €100,000 per annum from staff budget) but • High impact on school practice c.f. low impact of large-scale (> € 300,000,000) national INSET in ICT – the ‘NOF’ programme • Training in ICT pedagogy and skills is classroom-based, achieved collaboratively with supportive colleagues, and addresses the specific learning/ teaching concerns of each teacher/department

Collaborative learning with universities: School-based MA (1) • MA in School Effectiveness devised for staff at the school in conjunction with leading colleagues at the Institute of Education, London • Need identified in the School Development Plan – and the complaint of teachers that they were ‘too tired’ to go to the university at the end of a school day • Modules and sessions started from the shared school experience of the participants • School-individual collaboration – fees and time • Additional funding from ‘Business-Education partnership’

Collaborative learning with universities: School-based MA (2) • 25 teachers started the course • Year 1 had three modules and was taught at the school after the school day • Year 2 allowed an optional module and a dissertation – taught at the Institute of Education • Participants given time for reading ‘away days’ • School paid 50% of the course fees • Significant dropout after year 1 – but all participants valued the experience

Collaborative learning with universities: School-based diploma (1) • Post-graduate course in Emotional Literacy devised for staff at the school in conjunction with the University of Bristol – leading to a certificate or diploma • Need identified in review meetings of pastoral staff and in the School Development Plan • Course devised by steering group of 4 teachers, the school counsellor and an expert in emotional literacy from Bristol University • School-individual collaboration – fees and time

Collaborative learning with universities: School-based diploma (2) • 12 teachers on the course • Taught on Fridays/Saturdays with participants given time off teaching on the Fridays • School paid 50% of the course fees • ‘Action research’ coursework on specific aspects of EL, with feedback to all school colleagues of the progress and results on INSET days • Hampstead colleagues now leading courses in EL for other schools

Collaborative working with universities: summary • Starting point is the self-identification of school needs • Draw in specific expertise from recognised university experts, jointly to plan courses and modules • Significant amount of teaching at the school, in school time and developing from the shared experience of the participants • Joint commitment by the participants, school and university which helps build productive school-university partnerships. No longer “They stone us and say we walk with our heads in the clouds” (O. Elytis)

Summary • CPD is a continuous process, not a series of events • Makes real (and therefore helps maintain and develop) a school ethos that learning is life-long • Based on reflection, review, target setting, and continuing challenge and support for all staff and covering all aspects of school life • Is collaborative at all stages – and may require the development of innovative forms of collaboration • Above all requires the trust and confidence in self; colleagues and institution to allow one to be reflective and openly self-critical

Final thought Effective CPD becomes so ingrained in a school’s way of working that it ‘disappears’ and appears automatic However, many ‘automatic’ things take continuing effort Για να γυρίσει ο ήλιος θέλει δουλειά πολλή(Θέλει νεκροί χιλιάδες νά 'ναι στους Τροχούς) Θέλει κι οι ζωντανοί να δίνουν το αίμα τους. But “Worthy it is”

Learning Together, Achieving Together: the collaborative process of CPD