About cookies

The NCETM site uses cookies. Read more about our privacy policy

Please agree to accept our cookies. If you continue to use the site, we'll assume you're happy to accept them.

 

Personal Learning Login






Sign Up | Forgotten password?
 
Register with the NCETM

Key Elements (Primary): Liaison with SLT


This page has been archived. The content was correct at the time of original publication, but is no longer updated.
Created on 18 November 2009 by ncetm_administrator
Updated on 07 April 2010 by ncetm_administrator

Features of effective practice

An effective system for liaison with SLT may encompass the following features:
  • SLT is part of the process that creates the mathematics action plan
  • regular contact with SLT, which allows them to monitor, evaluate and support the Mathematics Subject Leader (SL) in a strategic and structured manner
  • the line manager acts as a critical friend
  • planned regular meetings that encourage a supportive, and challenging, dialogue between the mathematics subject leader and the SLT
  • SLT encourages and acknowledges the expertise of the SL and expects them to propose and develop new initiativescommitment to support the SL with driving improvements in mathematics (eg. CPD, resourcing) and an expectation that this will be done pro-actively
  • regular contact which ensures that the school takes account of local and national developments.

Case Study 1: School A – How CPD was adapted to reflect development of Assessing Pupil Progress (APP)

On returning from a Local Authority APP training event, the Deputy Head approached me to explore how previously booked Professional Development Meetings (PDMs) for mathematics could be adapted to support the development of APP. As a result, we decided to develop using the APP guidelines for mathematics for a trial period to be reviewed initially after 2 terms. The planned CPD focused on how open ended activities could support teaching and learning of mathematics was changed to incorporate the use of the Ma1 Guidelines to inform expectations. Teachers were asked to think of a pupil they taught and, using their mathematics book if necessary, highlight statements on the Ma1 guidelines sheet. I used an ‘Always, Sometimes, Never’ activity (these activities can support children in their reasoning skills – eg. “If you make the perimeter of a shape bigger the area gets bigger: is this always, sometimes or never true?”) with the staff and challenged them to identify the sorts of statements they could highlight if a child was successfully tackling such an activity.

This approach of introducing APP guidelines within a Mathematics PDM meant that teachers could immediately see its value and went away to trial its use with Years 4, 5 and 6 children in their own classes, initially focussing on Ma 1 and 2. By the time, teachers came to the next PDM, I was delighted to see that many had already started to use the guidelines for Ma 3 and Ma 4 to give a fuller picture of the children’s mathematical attainment. This flexible approach was made possible through good liaison between me and SLT.
 
 

Case Study 2: School B – A structured timetable of meetings between the mathematics Subject Leader and SLT

At the beginning of each academic year, I book meetings with my Deputy Head and Headteacher to review the progress with mathematics. I use the Mathematics Improvement Plan as a basis for discussions but also use the time to tackle issues that occur during the year – for example, staff leaving and budget requirements. They occur on an approximately three week cycle. Here is an outline of the focus for the meetings during the last academic year:
 

Autumn 1 Improvement Plan for mathematics – confirm objectives, precise actions, key personnel, expected improvements, monitoring procedures, resource implications and relevant timescales
agree numerical targets for the academic year
agree year group curricular targets for Term 1
Autumn 2 Pupils identified for additional support:
a) ensure resources and capacity to deliver mathematics intervention programmes are in place
b) discuss implications for CPD
c) areas of focus for intervention groups based on thorough analysis of data
d) agree procedures for monitoring children’s progress.
Spring 1 share outcomes of ‘focused walk’ (looking at learning environments linked to curricular targets):
- providing exemplifications, learning prompts and interactive activities
- using probing questions to extend thinking and strengthen understanding
- contributions from pupils to demonstrate progress towards achieving targets
confirm curricular targets for Term 3 (based on APP periodic judgements).
Spring 2 mid-year review of Improvement Plan (re: impact measure) – adjust plan in the light of outcomes from monitoring procedures
discuss progress of pupils receiving additional support.
Summer 1 provide report on outcomes of (short-term) planning review and work scrutiny: key focus – developments re: agreed Feedback and Marking policy for mathematics.
Summer 2 annual review:
- progression and standards
- impact measures (from Improvement Plan)
present draft Improvement Plan for next academic year (ie. key issues and improvement measures).

Reflection and next steps

  • reflect on the features of effective practice and think about what key areas within ‘Liaison with SLT’ you want to develop now
  • look through the case studies and decide whether there are any tasks or actions you might want to take that are prompted by these
  • use the NCETM Personal Learning Space to record any personal reflections, actions or tasks
  • from policy to practice.

Use this pro-forma to support you in planning your next steps.

Going further

 

    
 
 Primary Home
 
 
 Back to top
 
 

Quicklinks




 


Comment on this item  
 
Add to your NCETM favourites
Remove from your NCETM favourites
Add a note on this item
Recommend to a friend
Comment on this item
Send to printer
Request a reminder of this item
Cancel a reminder of this item

Comments

 


There are no comments for this item yet...
Only registered users may comment. Log in to comment