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

As part of our curriculum review, I'd like to compare how we're sequencing some of the key mathematical concepts through Years 7–9.

One area we've been reviewing is the progression from procedural fluency towards more flexible application.

In particular, we're looking at:

• Ratio and proportional reasoning

• Algebraic manipulation

• Fractions and percentage change

• Representation of data

• Mathematical reasoning and proof

One question we're considering is whether some topics are currently being revisited because pupils haven't retained the underlying concept, rather than because the curriculum has deliberately planned retrieval.

I'd be interested to know how other schools are approaching this.

Are there particular concepts that you deliberately revisit across all three KS3 years?

We're also trying to identify where there are opportunities to reduce repetition without compromising retention.

It would be useful to compare approaches before we make any changes to our sequencing document.

Mark

I'd like to start a discussion around GCSE problem-solving performance across the Trust.

Our recent assessment review suggests that pupils are generally secure with procedural knowledge, but performance becomes less consistent when questions require them to select and apply an appropriate strategy independently.

Three areas seem particularly significant:

• Translating unfamiliar contexts into mathematical representations

• Explaining reasoning rather than simply giving an answer

• Selecting an appropriate method when the question does not explicitly indicate which technique to use

We've had some success with structured problem-solving routines in Year 10, particularly where pupils are encouraged to identify:

What do I know? → What am I trying to find? → What mathematical relationships might help?

I'd be interested to hear whether other schools are using similar approaches.

I'm particularly keen to avoid creating another elaborate intervention programme. If there are approaches that can be embedded within normal classroom teaching, that would be much more sustainable.

It would also be useful to compare how we're approaching problem-solving in KS3, so that pupils aren't encountering these expectations for the first time in Year 10.

Thoughts and examples welcome.

Mark