1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

New Ofsted expectations for lessons- no more 3 part lesson??

Discussion in 'Primary' started by Dalian Daisy, May 13, 2012.

  1. Hi, We had a SIP in recently ( rather scary trouble shooting OFSTED inspector) who was meant to help us check our internal observations are accurate. Anyway she said that she couldn't help grade any lessons because they don't fit the new ofsted framework as they are too much 3 part lesson style & that we should be doing things like sending our HA off so they don't sit through the direct teaching & teaching the middles & setting them off & lots of this sort of thing & that groups change very frequently & that mixed direct teaching isn't the thing & planning is done nearly each night & changed as you go along.
    My question is how many of you are following this model? I spoke to a friend in a satsifactory school that said yes this is the message they have but their teachers have found it v hard adjusting too- she said that it's all about doing mini plenaries & not nec sitting solely with one group but patrolling & getting the ones that haven't got it back to the carpet for a reteach & that it's all about progress. Also when asked if the SIP could recommend a school following these practices well she couldn't!
    I do presently send off my HA with my TA for a G&T starter & sometimes get my TA to do direct teaching at a lower level with my Lows.... Any advice & experience greatly appreciated!
     
  2. Hi, We had a SIP in recently ( rather scary trouble shooting OFSTED inspector) who was meant to help us check our internal observations are accurate. Anyway she said that she couldn't help grade any lessons because they don't fit the new ofsted framework as they are too much 3 part lesson style & that we should be doing things like sending our HA off so they don't sit through the direct teaching & teaching the middles & setting them off & lots of this sort of thing & that groups change very frequently & that mixed direct teaching isn't the thing & planning is done nearly each night & changed as you go along.
    My question is how many of you are following this model? I spoke to a friend in a satsifactory school that said yes this is the message they have but their teachers have found it v hard adjusting too- she said that it's all about doing mini plenaries & not nec sitting solely with one group but patrolling & getting the ones that haven't got it back to the carpet for a reteach & that it's all about progress. Also when asked if the SIP could recommend a school following these practices well she couldn't!
    I do presently send off my HA with my TA for a G&T starter & sometimes get my TA to do direct teaching at a lower level with my Lows.... Any advice & experience greatly appreciated!
     
  3. We do very little whole class teaching. Teaching inputs are delivered in guided groups at the level of the learners - one gudied group from teacher and one from LSA - the other children working independently applying learning from previous guided sessions. We plan each night to make sure the children are in the right groups to access the correct teaching input. Our progress data reflects the level of focus that the children get - it's about differentiating the teaching input, not the task.
    There is of course the room for whole class teaching ie, if there is a whole class need or for Talk for Writing activities in Literacy etc.
    We just moved from satisfactory to outstanding under the new framework.
     
  4. Imtellingonyou

    Imtellingonyou New commenter

    I've just joined a school this year that adopts this model. We've moved away from the whizzy bang showcase lesson that we would normally pull out for an obs and actually focused on the learning. It places much greater focus on assessment for learning and moving children on. You almost have to show that at the start of the lesson they know very little and by the end they know more. It's actually more what you would normally do as a good teacher rather than pulling something out of the bag.
     
  5. lillipad

    lillipad New commenter

    I would struggle immensely with this. My children working independently would sit and chatter and make noise and fuss and not get on, and they'd spend the whole time hassling me asking for help when they're stuck... and if I wasn't able to give it, they'd just sit and chatter! If it was something they could do, they'd do it quickly and run to me to say they'd finish, and if I were teaching I couldn't stop to mark their work to check they'd actually done it right... ah... The down sides of working in a very small classroom.
     
  6. Er, we didn't start with children who can work independently for a whole session either!
    It is all about training them. They know that they will get their direct teaching time with me or the LSA and they know that they are expected to apply the learning from the previous session. Children leave EYFS with a high level of independence and somehow lose this as they move through a school. Bear in mind that this is a whole school approach so the children will move through the school knowing how they are expected to work. It does present initial problems for children who join us later in their school life from whole class teaching situations but they soon adapt to it and appreciate the greater level of focus on their learning.
    Please don't think we are blessed with twee little learners; we aren't!
     
  7. clawthorpegirl

    clawthorpegirl New commenter

    I find it really interesting, and quite concerning, that this type of lesson seems to have appeared from nowhere but is now seen as the only acceptable lesson structure to follow!
    As a school we were criticised for not following this model, particularly during maths, during Oftsed last summer. It now seems to pop up regularly in posts on here.
    Does anyone know where is comes from and if there is any evidence that this is the only way to ensure better than expected progress etc etc? I teach Year 2 and the higher ability group need to (and have the right to) access direct teaching at the appropriate level and in the appropriate way sometimes.
    I do use this stucture sometimes and it can be very effective, equally I sometimes set off my MA and/or LA first and keep the HA with me to move their learning on and to teach them some L3 Maths etc.

     
  8. This works great if you have a competent T/A!
     
  9. WolfPaul

    WolfPaul Occasional commenter

    The biggest concern is that there can be any question of a particular model being enforced by OFSTED. It's perfectly possible to get progress using any model as long as it's applied effectively and appropriately. Just think, the thee-part lesson was all the rage a short time ago; I wonder how long the model described in this thread will last before it becomes old-hat?
    The second main concern is the withering of teachers' autonomy to take professional decisions in a school such as that described by Devonsent. The "whole school" approach is instead lauded, when in reality it is yet another nail in the coffin of teachers' professionalism, lying trampled on in the headlong rush to turn all teachers into clones.
    I despair at times,
     
  10. I don't think anyone said it was the only acceptable structure to follow.
    Again, not the only way to ensure progress but we find it a very effective one. 100% of our children have made the expected 2 levels of progress over KS2 in both Literacy and Numeracy for a few years now. A good percentage go on to make accelerated progress and do 3 levels.
    Sounds like you do this way then!
     
  11. palmtree100

    palmtree100 Lead commenter

    It sounds like an impossible juggling act, but then I am secondary trained so probably don't have enough knowledge. It seemes to me that the insistence on mixed ability teaching in primary will always hinder the kind of progress Ofsted want.
    Why not just set children according to ability and be done with it? It works in the best comprehensives, and children can be in different sets for different subjects. Obviously some subjects could remain mixed ability, like P.E., PSHE, art and music, to enable children to mix with a variety of people. Humanities would be a set rather than individual history/geography/R.E. At any point in teh year children should be able to move up or down between sets.
    I have seen some "outstanding" primary schools are setting by deliberately having mixed-age classes (one form entry). It simply helps the teacher deliver the right level teaching. Classes should be of 10 - 15 children only. More teachers would be needed, but perhaps fewer TA's?
     
  12. Imtellingonyou

    Imtellingonyou New commenter

    It might be different, but it's not rocket science (it's also not the be all). It's all about finding out what the children don't know and focusing on their learning. You don't need a TA to be able to do this (although it is a luxury!). You need to be assessing the children when you are teaching them to identofy the ones who have got it and can be moved on and the ones who don't and need extra help. It's not about ability groups, it's about your understanding of your class and how to move them on.
     
  13. In the current climate where TAs are available to be in class to give general support less and less this is tricky to achieve. If it is you and 31 Y2s then it is hard to doand all those things. The HA are able to be independent tackling a challenge whilst I do an input for the others, but if I set my LA on a task, whilst doing an input, they really struggle to stay on task. They get distracted by me teaching and end up sitting starting at me instead! I think you need a second adult to prompt and re-focus this kind of group.
    Not sure about this whole 'no more than 10 mins' though, as if you have a m/oral maths starter then that gives you 5 mins to do an input for the main, which seems unlikely to me! I do understand keeping it snappy, as it can be awful when teachers ramble on and on and the children have 15 mins left to do any work, but stating a 10 minute window is just silly. Teachers have different ways of working and what works for one doesn't for another and one school where they have a TA in every lesson can work in a different way to a school where TAs are scarce.
     
  14. I have to say that in maths though we often plan the week and change it once we have worked with them on the first day. The second day is usually changed because of how they have got on and I would think that would be the same for most people wouldn't it?
     
  15. WolfPaul

    WolfPaul Occasional commenter

    Yes, but this doesn't imply a single model, nor does it mean that teachers who apply that model are actually doing this.
     
  16. lillipad

    lillipad New commenter

    This is what I was getting at. It would inevitably fall on my HA to be working independently while I saw to the LA who like yours, struggle to stay on task and either spend the whole time hassling me for help, or sitting and chatting and mucking about because they can't do it. I do agree you'd have to have a 2nd adult, if you wanted to get quality time with the higher children. As it stands I tend to do a short input with all, differentiating as I go, then work with target groups in the same way. The only difference is that rarely groups are on their own during the main input... My classroom is too small to allow chn to work on their own without disrupting us on the carpet anyway.
     
  17. I agree teachers work differently and we must not forget children are different learners too one size fits all does not work for either party . If the children in a teacher,s class are making good progress surely the method used must be working. If it is working - don,t fix it! I wish they would let us just get on with our job and focus on those in the profession that clearly have chosen the wrong job.
     
  18. It's a case of deciding on the right lesson structure for what you are trying to teach and that won't be the same every day. Some lessons I teach groups right from the start with others working independently. TA and I work with 2 groups each so they all have direct input for half the lesson. That would be a lesson where I specifically needed to work at different levels. The independent work (Y1) is often set up as a game or a challenge in areas of provision. Other lessons could be 3-part if I want to teach all the children a concept or introduce a whole-class activity that they will work on at different levels. Other lessons are mixd up completely. As long as the children are learning it doesn't matter which structure you are using.
     
  19. clawthorpegirl

    clawthorpegirl New commenter

    Our Ofsted lead inspector did!
    From the sounds of it the SIP referred to by the OP did too!

     
  20. clawthorpegirl

    clawthorpegirl New commenter

    I agree! I know where all my class are and what their next steps are, and groups are very fluid but I still often do a whole class input before any start independent tasks.
     

Share This Page