Please bear
in mind, when reading the following report, that this is a personal response -
you may not agree with my reactions, but hopefully there will be enough factual
content to allow you to draw your own conclusions.
Stuart
Report on
SALT conference,
Address by Maureen Watt, MSP
(Minister for Education)
The
minister talked at some length about CfE and the
impact it is hoped it will have on our education system and, indeed, the nation
as a whole in the future.
It is seen
as an ambitious set of reforms offering an agreed set of outcomes and a more
focused approach leading to a more successful nation. She spoke of
The draft
experiences or outcomes in Building the Curriculum 3 have been (or are being)
trialled in over 300 schools, a DVD has been produced, and there have been
quality events (such as the Stirling Conference), all providing support for CfE.
As far as
the agenda is concerned - we should not be waiting to be told what to do.
This is in keeping with the drive to emphasise we are all reflective practitioners.
Planning is
necessary to provide confidence among practitioners, and we must maintain the
momentum.
This
process is transformational, though we shouldn't ignore existing good practice.
We need to show greater flexibility, working with other areas in the
curriculum, and sharing learning and teaching techniques.
We will
have higher expectations of pupils, again sharing experiences and good
practice, perhaps through the internet.
The new
Baccalaureate will encourage pupils to study more than one language, and will
raise the status of S6.
Clearly,
all of this will necessitate a cultural change, which the government will look
into.
We must
work together to achieve our aims.
My
thoughts:
As I have
indicated in previous documents (which have been ignored by the "engagement
team" at CfE), I feel that this process is based on
existing good practice, and the capacities and objectives of this initiative
are derived from what is already judged to be successful. It is therefore not
necessarily the great reform suggested, but rather a sharing of good practice
which will, undoubtedly, raise the bar.
I was also under
the impression that we were already trying to achieve that which has been set
out as aims for CfE, but I agree this
needs to be emphasised as an objective, though it is rather offensive to
suggest this is new.
There may,
indeed, have been trials and events etc., but if detail of their content
remains inadequately communicated, or if their content is of such a general
nature and without practical suggestions for others, there seems to be little
point in producing them. It should be borne in mind that the capacities apply
equally to teachers, and the present methods of going about "spreading the
word" are doing little to help teachers' confidence or sense of success.
We should
all be working on this initiative in our own schools, applying the outcomes and
experiences to our courses and lessons because we are all reflective
practitioners. Announcing huge change, but failing to advise us of the exact
nature of this change is hardly conducive to clarity of thought or direction.
Asking us all to respond to the needs of our own pupils does not preclude
leadership, advice, or direction from those "in the know". On a practical
level, it also implies that we will all be re-inventing the wheel (hence the
suggestion we should share experiences, but sites such as ltscotland
appear to be focused on the creation of "useful" sites rather than actually
populating them with sufficient variety of material). There is also the small
matter of pupils who change schools - what will happen to them if each school
is able (indeed required) to produce its own curriculum?
There
appears to be a suggestion that we should all be able to "produce the goods" on
our own. Personally, I have never been particularly good at this element, but I
am willing to gain inspiration from others. I may see possibilities when I am
shown examples, but I will probably not see those possibilities on my own. I
don't feel this makes me a weak practitioner. However, it does underline the
importance of communicating and sharing with one another.
The
minister was obliged to make the points she made - this is, after all, the
"official line", but I hope she is aware of the difference between the
political perception and the reality.
Address by Sir David Edward, newly appointed
President of SALT
Sir David
gave an at times amusing address which he considered pessimistic, but which I
found refreshingly realistic.
He started
by stating that he could offer no informed advice to us as teachers, claiming
he had not been a strong student of languages at school, and he has never
taught. He went on to discuss the way he was taught French (and Latin and
Greek), which was strongly grammar-based. This led to the familiar fear of
making mistakes in spoken work, but also provided access to other languages. He
pointed out that English is now taught with very little emphasis on grammar,
thus making the study of other languages even more problematic, and we tend to
simplify our own language - never use ten words if two or three simpler ones
will do. (I regularly tell my pupils that a French person will never use ten
words if he can possibly use thirty).
He pointed
out also that in
A study of
language will allow for a study and awareness of other cultures, thoughts and
thought processes, and adds considerable value to other studies.
I have to
say I found this "grounded" address refreshing and encouraging - not only
because he reiterated points I made in my own document about CfE 18 months ago (though that did help!), but because it
gave hope that someone in a senior position may be able and willing to point
out certain truths and deficiencies in policy. Personally, I feel strongly that
one way forward for ML teaching is through more thorough teaching of English
grammar.
Excellence in modern language teaching, Jane
Renton (HMI)
Ms Renton
gave an informative and, I felt, largely encouraging address.
She started
by stating that excellence in the classroom was not as unusual as we might
think, and she sought to be reassuring.
The
curriculum/course we follow should have a relevance to life, and she pointed
out that "curriculum" has a much broader definition than we might previously
have thought. It includes ethos (relationships between staff and pupils, pupils
and pupils, staff and staff), the particular course we use, of course, and its
relevance, an interdisciplinary element (which, she suggested, has been
somewhat seized upon and exaggerated), and personal achievement, which
incorporates a school show, organising trips, Work Experience abroad etc.
Greater
attention should be paid to the attributes and skills beneath the headings of
the four capacities (they may offer a greater lead/direction when developing
materials).
Equally,
there has been less focus on the design principles of CfE,
but these are just as important - challenge and enjoyment, breadth,
progression, depth, personalisation and choice, coherence and relevance.
Relevant to what?
Pupils' own
experiences, prior learning and interests, local community, impact of
technology (though sometimes this can take over and point behind its use is
forgotten), essential skills demanded by employers, 21st century
We are encouraged
to adopt new approaches to learning and teaching incorporating innovation, and
to break away from the course book (not permanently, but with alternatives).
The need
for greater exemplification and guidance has been taken on board, and the
finalised experiences and outcomes will contain some revision, elaboration and
exemplification.
This year
is to be devoted to planning and preparation, though it will be pupils in the
current P6 who will be the first cohort to sit the new qualifications (whatever
they will look like!).
No
material will be forthcoming. We are expected to create our own materials, but
with support. There will be no package to deliver, but new approaches to
learning and teaching are required. Since we don't know exactly where we are
going, we should share good practice.
It is
expected that most pupils will study a language until the end of S3, though
they may leave if they have already achieved level 3.
Excellence
is not unusual - it is being achieved through good learning and teaching. We
should have high expectations of pupils, change wall displays of their work
regularly, have good relationships and discuss pedagogy in departmental
meetings. We should not just prepare pupils for exams - there should be a
collaborative process.
I found
this address encouraging because I feel we are already achieving many of the
aims and outcomes, but, once again, it comes down to the sharing of good
practice and communicating with one another to offer ideas, inspiration and
encouragement because quite clearly this will not be forthcoming centrally.
Incidentally, in another session I mentioned that we use a Google Group to keep
in touch with one another, and this produced some stunned looks on faces.
In the afternoon, I attended a session on cross-curricular mini
projects, and online support for course work. Both were provided by members of
the Goethe Institut.
In the
first session, it was suggested we communicate with other departments and
develop common projects. The example given was the teaching of colour theory
(from art) taught in German by a German teacher. Given that I don't speak
German and am colour blind, this was a little lost on me, but I got the
principle!
A
presentation about
boergmann@glasgow.goethe.org- (her first name is Lilo)
In the
second, we were shown a blog created by a teacher, to which pupils can
contribute in German - I thought this was a good idea, though I think a few
people already use this in
More
information available from: warnecke@glasgow.goethe.org- (first name Sylvia)
The
overwhelming impression I left with is that we need to support one another by
sharing ideas and materials. We will undoubtedly be stronger, and this process
of change will be made easier, if we work on this together.
Stuart