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 professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

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

    Dismiss Notice

scheme of work hour by hour breakdown, who has to do it?

Discussion in 'Mathematics' started by expatmanxman, Feb 6, 2012.

  1. In the paranoic Ofsted frenzy that appears to rule our school we have been told that we have to produce an hour by hour breakdown of all lessons for all ability groups and all years. Needless to say this is going to be a huge task, the justification given being that IF we have a supply teacher or an NQT they will have every lesson pre planned for them. Is anybody else having to do this, to us it seems like a massive amount of work for something that might never happen. When the lesson plans are all in place and accessible by all we won't be using them anyway as teachers have their own ways of doing things.
     
  2. In the paranoic Ofsted frenzy that appears to rule our school we have been told that we have to produce an hour by hour breakdown of all lessons for all ability groups and all years. Needless to say this is going to be a huge task, the justification given being that IF we have a supply teacher or an NQT they will have every lesson pre planned for them. Is anybody else having to do this, to us it seems like a massive amount of work for something that might never happen. When the lesson plans are all in place and accessible by all we won't be using them anyway as teachers have their own ways of doing things.
     
  3. Piranha

    Piranha Star commenter

    Potty. Don't NQTs write their own lesson plans now?
     
  4. bombaysapphire

    bombaysapphire Star commenter

    How does being given an hour by hour breakdown work with AfL?
    Surely if they need an extra hour on topic x rather than being moved on to topic y that is what the teacher should do? An hour by hour breakdown would discourage that.
     
  5. This is absolutely barmy. I hope you have a strong HoD who will fight SMT on this. Why is having every lesson pre-planned an advantage?
    Ofsted would not want to see this. NQTs are qualified to be able to plan their own lessons.
    The AfL argument is very strong - SoWs like this take no account of personalised/indvidualised learning, don't account for a particular class's strengths/weaknesses and is utterly ludicrous. Pointless - fight this one!
    All of my lessons, and seemingly all of my colleagues' lessons are planned for each individual lesson. Whether that's a full plan or just a few notes in a planner - each has its own thought process behind it, to suit what's relevant to that particular class at that particular class, using the SoW as a guide of course. In some subjects pre-planning works well, such as in humantities, where year 7 and 8 lessons are all the same every year because they are taught by non-specialists (history teachers teaching geography and vice versa), and all classes are mixed ability and differentiation is mostly by outcome. In maths that just doesn't work.
     
  6. It's about balance really.
    Too much prescription in a SoW limits creativity and 'tailoring' lessons to the individual groups needs.
    Too little structure and it causes carnage in terms of students moving groups; transition at the end of a school year etc. with different students having studied different things entirely to different depths of understanding.
    For me I like a SoW that breaks the year down into chunks so that, say, by the end of the first 10 weeks everyone in year 7 will have studied X,Y,Z.
    I go a bit further and break this 10 weeks down into 2 or 3 week chunks on different topics (we had a cyclical scheme - 3 weeks on number, 3 on algebra, 2 on shape, 2 on data per 10 week chunk).
    Each of these shorter blocks of time had learning objectives listed (including differentiated outcomes) and a whole host of linked videos, card sorts, worksheets etc. for staff to utilise as they saw fit with their groups. When i say linked some were class sets of hard copies in drawer units and others were electronic links.
    It was about setting a mimium standard for lessons - one of the things I find most time consuming is finding resources for the lesson I have planned. To write them all from scratch is unrealistic but to have a varied bank to select from means that the odds are there will be something appropriate and in the few cases there is not or I have a specific new resource in mind then I can write something new.
    The idea was that if someone had a pile of stuff on then there would be enough available to deliver good lessons as a minimum. Obviously very often people went beyond that.
    I believe it's a good idea to have a scheme of work that is robust enough to deal with a significant change in staffing. It's easy enough to induct 1 NQT into a team and give ad hoc individual support on the SoW or to deal with 1 staff being long term absent.
    Trying to induct 2 or 3 NQTs/new staff at the same time or having a couple of staff off on long term illness puts a strain on the time available for those individual conversations - having a SoW that is strong enough to offer support for those staff keeps everyone sane!


     
  7. hammie

    hammie Lead commenter

    my thought exactly, throw this in at the next staff meeting without warning the *** who suggested it.
    My very recent experience of OFSTED is that they are absolutely not looking for preplanned work.
    The big query was there is no evidence of the planning being adapted for each class and individual within the class, so we are now covering any preplanning in red pen to show evidence of AFL in action!
    I always have an overview for the week but cannot plan in detail until I have seen their first attempts on a new topic.
     

Share This Page