I came across a short CPD resource recently that I've found useful for getting departments to talk about classroom practice without turning the session into a presentation.

The basic idea is to take one familiar classroom routine and ask three questions:

What are we currently doing?
What do we want pupils to be doing instead?
What small change could we make tomorrow?

We've used it with a couple of teams and the simplicity seems to help. People tend to move quite quickly from talking about the theory to discussing what they'd actually change in a lesson.

Thought it was worth sharing in case anyone is looking for a straightforward structure for a department or phase meeting.

Tom

As we review the Trust KPI framework, I've been thinking about whether we're focusing too heavily on measures that are easy to report rather than measures that are genuinely useful.

Attendance, behaviour, assessment outcomes and financial performance are obviously important, but they don't necessarily tell us everything about how effectively a school is operating.

A few areas I'm wondering about:

• Staff retention and stability
• Staff workload
• Pupil engagement
• Progress of disadvantaged pupils
• Impact of professional development
• Parental engagement

I'm not suggesting we add another twenty measures to the dashboard. Quite the opposite.

I'd like us to think about whether there are one or two measures that would give Trustees a better understanding of the health of our schools without creating another reporting burden.

Interested in views.

Simon

One question that keeps coming up as we work through the Development Plan is where we draw the line between Trust-wide consistency and individual school autonomy.

There are some areas where I think consistency is clearly beneficial — safeguarding processes, core data definitions, financial controls and certain aspects of curriculum expectations.

Equally, I don't think we should create a situation where schools are required to operate identically simply because they belong to the same Trust.

I'd be interested in views on where colleagues think the boundaries should sit.

In particular, are there areas where we've pushed for consistency when allowing more local flexibility might actually produce better outcomes?

David

I've been looking at the information we currently collect for Trust reporting, and there are a few areas where we're asking schools for essentially the same information in slightly different formats.

The biggest examples at the moment are:

• Attendance figures
• Behaviour incidents
• Suspensions
• Assessment outcomes
• Staff absence

In some cases the information already exists in the MIS, but we're then asking schools to transfer it into a separate spreadsheet or template for Trust reporting.

I'm not suggesting we remove any of the underlying checks. The question is whether we can get to a position where schools enter information once and we extract what we need from there.

Has anyone already tackled this successfully?

Chris

A question from a recent lesson that I'm sure others will recognise.

We have some pupils who put their hands up almost immediately when they encounter something they find difficult. Sometimes they haven't actually tried anything yet.

We're looking at ways of encouraging pupils to pause, use the resources available to them and make an initial attempt before asking for help.

Things we've tried include:

• "Ask three before me"
• Prompt cards on desks
• Worked examples pupils can refer back to
• A short "What have you tried?" routine before providing help

Some of these seem to work better than others, particularly with younger pupils.

Interested to hear what others have found effective — and whether anyone has managed to build this into classroom routines without it becoming another thing for teachers to police.

Sarah

One thing we've been discussing in the Teaching & Learning team is how we make better use of research evidence without creating another layer of professional reading for staff.

There is certainly no shortage of material available, but I'm not convinced that simply sharing more research papers or summaries necessarily changes classroom practice.

A few approaches we've been considering:

• Short evidence summaries linked to a specific classroom problem
• Using CPD time to examine one research finding and consider its practical implications
• Sharing examples of what an evidence-informed approach looks like in an actual lesson
• Being more explicit about the strength and limitations of the evidence
• Revisiting ideas after a term rather than treating research as a one-off CPD activity

I'm particularly interested in whether colleagues have found ways of making research feel relevant to teachers who don't necessarily have the time or inclination to read lengthy papers.

What has worked in your schools?

Sarah

I'd like to compare approaches to feedback across the Trust, particularly where we're trying to improve its impact without increasing marking workload.

One thing emerging from our recent discussions is that the amount of written feedback pupils receive doesn't necessarily appear to correlate with how much they subsequently improve.

We're therefore exploring whether we can make feedback more deliberately focused on what pupils need to do next.

Some approaches currently being trialled include:

• Whole-class feedback following common misconceptions

• Live verbal feedback during independent practice

• Short improvement tasks rather than lengthy written comments

• Using model answers to support self-correction

• Identifying recurring misconceptions and addressing them at the start of the next lesson

The intention isn't to reduce the quality of feedback.

It's to make sure that the time staff spend giving feedback actually contributes to learning rather than simply producing more marking.

I'd be particularly interested in what colleagues have found works with older pupils, where there can be an expectation that effective feedback means extensive written commentary.

Sarah

I'd like to open a discussion around cognitive load and how we're applying the principles consistently across classrooms.

Our recent learning walks suggest that staff are generally very good at identifying when pupils are struggling, but the response isn't always consistent.

In some cases, additional support means adding more:

• Instructions

• Prompts

• Worksheets

• Examples

• Written explanations

The intention is positive, but we may occasionally be increasing the amount of information pupils have to process.

Some approaches we've found useful include:

• Reducing instructions to the essential steps

• Modelling one process before asking pupils to work independently

• Using worked examples before moving to partially completed examples

• Pre-teaching genuinely essential vocabulary

• Removing visual or written information once pupils no longer need the scaffold

The final point is particularly important.

A scaffold should ideally be something pupils move beyond, rather than something they become dependent upon.

I'd be interested in how colleagues are approaching this, particularly in mixed-attainment classes.

Sarah

As part of our wider curriculum review, I'd like to explore how we're developing STEM thinking across KS3.

One area we're considering is whether pupils experience enough progression in the way they apply scientific knowledge to unfamiliar problems.

At present, pupils encounter plenty of individual STEM activities, but these aren't always connected into a clear progression.

I'd like us to consider whether we could identify some common expectations across Years 7–9, for example:

• Interpreting and evaluating data

• Designing investigations

• Identifying variables and controlling them appropriately

• Using mathematical models within Science

• Evaluating evidence and drawing justified conclusions

• Applying scientific knowledge to real-world problems

I'm particularly interested in how we can avoid STEM becoming a collection of interesting activities rather than a coherent part of the curriculum.

It would be useful to compare what other schools are doing and identify approaches that are sustainable for classroom teachers.

Aisha

I'd like to start a discussion around practical work and accessibility across KS3 and GCSE Science.

One issue we've been exploring is how to remove unnecessary barriers to practical activities without reducing the level of scientific thinking expected from pupils.

We've noticed that some pupils struggle with practical work because of the number of instructions they have to process simultaneously, rather than because they lack the scientific understanding required.

Some approaches we've been trialling include:

• Using annotated diagrams alongside written instructions

• Breaking practical procedures into clearly sequenced stages

• Pre-teaching key equipment and terminology

• Modelling the first stage before pupils begin independently

• Reducing unnecessary text while retaining the important scientific vocabulary

The interesting question for us is where the balance lies.

We don't want to make practical work so heavily scaffolded that pupils become dependent on prompts. Equally, removing support too quickly can prevent some pupils from demonstrating what they actually understand.

I'd be interested to hear what colleagues are finding, particularly with transition from KS3 into GCSE.

Aisha