I am very supportive of vertical tutoring - the benefits I experienced in my previous school include students acting as leaders in different areas for one another, informal mentoring relationships being formed across ages and stages, care and support through difficult transitions by those who had been there before, help with bullying etc etc
I am neutral towards the five period day, although I would like to see a timetable that has some built in collaborative time like at SIS.
I am hesitant to support the idea of a nine day cycle without some more ideas about how the tenth day would be used, who would be responsible for its operation and how it would be planned.
I think that a change in the school day is a good idea and will give us much greater flexibility in our approach. I think rationalising activities into one designated day where possible is an excellent idea. But I still think the students should be on timetable unless they are involved in an activity.
I have reservations about the whole day one in 10 being entirely off timetable (at least at first). As somebody who helped trial the inquiry project, I am open to new styles of teaching and learning, and believe we should continue to develop these alongside some more traditional approaches. However to fill one entire day in 10 for a whole year, next year seems too much too soon, especially when we will not yet be a one to one laptop school. New initiatives will be planned hastily and students may not value the day.
But I do think that significant blocks time off timetable for service projects, trips etc. could take place on designated days. Why not have a nine day timetable with each of the nine days then repeated over nine fortnights on the '2nd Friday'? Keep those students who are not in activities in normal lessons but have their teacher not plan new material; just help with coursework, revision, study etc. as they know that several students or all may be missing due to well planned and therefore worthwhile activities.
Cross Curricular, Units of Inquiry, Thematic Days Understanding of cross curricular days needs to be expanded, and better understood. - Even Jay's report from last years experienced expressed that staff need a level of CPD. PYP and plain old UK National Curriculum for Primary pupils who normally have just one teacher for every discrete subject, follow themes, and apply the same theme or Unit of Inquiry to each of the discrete subject areas, ensuring that math, English, art, geography, history, technology, ICT, and music, etc. are all covered during the week / two weeks. For health week, English, Business, MFL, PE, Design Technology, ICT, and Food Technology were involved, with promoting Health week. Working within our departments we came up schemes of work, and ONE period of collaboration, finalized the planning for the cross collaboration - Advantages we took aspects of our own curriculum, and applied the thematic unit of enquiry, this ensured that students did not miss any aspects of their main curriculum development in each of their subjects, but teachers understood what the other teachers were teaching during that week and were able to refer to it, so for example students were writing advertising slogans for a fitness bar that they made in food tech, packaged in D&T, analysed the effects and the relationship of eating nutrition bars and exercise in PE...Labelling and advertising in different languages and costing and marketing in Business.. Music, Art, Math, Science, Geography, History, IPSE could all be involved. Students are not disrupted, not moved about the school into different areas, teachers are not being asked to teach out of their subject area, but are asked to coordinate collaboratively to consider how they can support a thematic line of inquiry using existing parts of their curriculum. Other suggestions for thematic weeks: We already have Reading /Book week and Maths week, we could have an Arts week in which young musicians takes place, or the school production, etc. There could be a Humanities themed week with the geography field trips taking place this week, and we already have a science competition for Year 9s this could form the basis of a science week.
The other ESF schools through various timetabling arrangement, students have a free afternoon or morning, Timetabling is covered (hours etc) and the staff have meetings, preparation time cross curricular discussions on a weekly basis Identify what teachers want to do with the time that is being created, most of the so called consulattion as I recall identified that teachers need more time to spend within their department planning, developing the curriculum creating resources (even more with the new Moodle). All our subjects are organic and need development to be up-to-date, including the latest research, technology, and teaching ideas. So Why haven't we explored these arrangements? And why are we trying to reinvent the wheel and in the process making it square?
My best suggestion is a 5 day timetable continually rolling on untill the end of June when nobody will mind which day of the week we finish on. For example: if Friday is sport day, then Monday is Day 5, but if Thursday is a public holiday or a typhoon then Friday is day 4. At the end of term when only P1 is taught, then this could be used in a different way with long practical tutor periods even asking students to attend by appointment with a final registration 10 mins before the end of term assembly - this would happen three times a year and be discounted as a teaching day, Thus number of 'off curriculum' timetable days can be reduced from 19 to a much smaller acceptable and manageable amount. My greatest concern are the proposed increase from 4 to 5 periods a day, from a teachers perspective that would require more time for planning and preparation, are we getting more time? At GCSE and IB are we going to get much smaller class sizes so that we can attend to our students needs more effectively in the short 60 mins As it was suggested that the vertical tutoring would in fact reduce our non-contact time? and students would definitely see an increase in homework tasks if being asked to attend five different lessons Finally... Reduce movement around the school, only specialist subjects, D&T, Science, Art, Music, PE, all other lessons students stay put and teachers move around the school.
1. Flexible Friday’s • I welcome the idea of a 10th day for activities and events that usually disrupt the curriculum. • This will give us the opportunity for Art (for instance) to offer a number of activities that we would hesitate to offer currently, due to the disruption this could cause.
• It will be very helpful, the rest of the time, to find that our curriculum time was not interrupted; this would be a huge improvement on the current situation. • The SLT would need to manage this time and ensure that the same staff were not over-burdened with planning all of the time. If every teacher pulls together, this could be a great success.
2. 5 x 1-hour lessons • A 60 minute lesson is simply not long enough for many of the activities that we teach. • Ceramics, for instance, can take about 15 minutes to set up and another 15 minutes to pack away and clear up. This could not be taught well during one-hour lessons and the same could apply to many other Art activities. • We make very good use of the 75 minute lessons. We have really needed this time. • We have already had our time reduced this past couple of years (80 mins – 75 mins). • Many schools do operate with a 5 (60 minute) lesson day. I wonder how important the Arts are in those schools and how successful the Arts are. • Would our GCSE students be reduced to 2 x 1 hour lessons per week? This would not be enough. How much time for IB? • The idea of arranging the timetable in a more flexible manner, allowing for 1.5 hour lessons for certain subjects sounds practical and would certainly suit our needs. • Perhaps, there could even be 2-hour blocks for IB lessons at times; this would be excellent.
3. 10 Minute Registration • The opportunity for the students to touch-base with their Form Tutor every morning is seen as being important for a variety of reasons. It would be a pity if this opportunity were missed. • If there is a change in timetable for next year and a flexible Friday, I feel that it will be easier to facilitate under the present tutor system. To change too many things at once seems unwise. Why not establish the timetable changes etc. and then properly discuss the Pastoral changes and deal with these at a later time.
A couple of points from me regarding the STC change agenda.
I believe that vertical tutoring would be beneficial in all of the ways Stewart mentioned above and very much welcome it.
Regarding the movement to a 5 period day, I have lots of misgivings, both about the rationale behind it and the practicalities of implementing it. Firstly, if my maths is correct (and given that when I was taught GCSE maths we only had two 1hr 20min periods per week, it probably isn't)we are effectively 'creating' 5 additional periods in a 2 week cycle. What thought has been given to the equitable distribution of these periods? Let's say for example that Business Studies isn't one of the lucky winners, then it seems to me that my teaching time with GCSE groups, say, could fall from 5 hrs (4 x 1.25 hrs) to 4 hrs (4 x 1 hr) per fortnight. Are we simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, to use a cliche.
Secondly, there is a lot more planning and assessment time for a 5 period day as Jutka mentioned earlier. 4 period teaching days at STC are manageable with long break and lunchtime to prepare resources and carry out assessment etc. Adding an extra period and reducing breaks will be quite a big shift in pace and I am not sure that this will have a beneficial impact on our outcomes. Now it is true that other schools (like the one I came from in the UK) teach 5 period days with short breaks. Whilst this is true, it is also often true that non-PE staff have little commitment to offering extra curricular activities at the end of a day where they have hardly had time to eat (no exaggeration, my porkiness on arrival was down to post-work comfort eating). I would refute any suggestion that this is down to a reluctance to 'work harder'. We all work terribly hard as things stand. The question is, will more teaching periods deliver better outcomes and enhance teaching and learning? I am yet to be convinced that it will.
Another point that was mentioned is that due to students arriving late etc we often don't teach full 1hr15min lessons. If this is an issue that these changes are designed to address then I believe giving students more periods to be late to is a curious way of solving it. If it is true that colleagues are 'wasting' time at the beginning and end of lessons then surely these 1 hr lessons will now become 50 minute lessons?
I think that one of the principal arguments for the model is tackling disruption to the curriculum. I believe that several solutions to solve the problem were discussed on 'Sugarpaper Monday' , many of which would present less upheaval than the one proposed. I find it odd that despite this fact there is only one model up for discussion and no alternative strategies for our consideration. Whilst I accept that the need for a quick turnaround time is probably the reason for this, it is important we look at all options in my opinion.
In terms of the new Fridays, I am very much with Stewart that we need to have a better idea of how these would work. Many questions are still to be answered in terms of what will be required of staff on these days. I don't think anyone, if we're honest, is comfortable with the idea of 'babysitting' the half of year 10 who are not standing in an Ox-bow lake in Tai Po with Jen Lederer. Would we operate a carousel system so all students had broadly similar experiences over the year? I think consistency is key.
Thematic days can work and I found working with colleagues from other departments during Health Week last year a very valuable experience. However, we need time to plan these events - how can this be accommodated? The SLT were right to point out the importance of these days being considered meaningful to the student body, We have 19 Fridays to plan for and to provide quality experiences for the students every fortnight will be no mean feat. I do recognise the importance of cross curricular programmes (as per the CIS-WASC review) but believe that if delivered as an add-on the students may come to view them with disdain.
In addition, moving all disruption to one Friday in two cannot work 100% due to many factors beyond our control.
Finally, I take the view that it is important that we don't look upon those colleagues voicing reservations as 'inert' or 'against progress' or whatnot. Any changes that are implemented must surely raise achievement and the quality of the student experience. With the exception of vertical tutoring I think that the ideas we have been presented with will bring many new difficulties and may not fully solve the problems for which they are intended to address.
I do not agree with the premise that events/trips etc are 'interruptions to the flow of learning' as stated in the staff meeting. On the contrary, I firmly believe that these events enhance learning and contribute to school life. If the problem is that too many Friday lessons have been missed, then just distribute them better in the future. We are a highly effective school with great exam results, have these perceived 'disruptions' actually had effect?
I can envisage a couple of problems with the Friday proposal. Firstly what happens if we all need the same students on that day? For example there are a number of year 12's that are heavily involved with many events. Would we have to limit their involvement to avoid clashes? If so does this not dilute their school enrichment? Secondly, what happens to events that cannot take place on a Friday?
4 lesson, 5 lessons. It really does not matter, put a class in front of any good teacher and they will just get on with it. I would just urge those involved with the decision making to consider the question; "What makes a rich and enhanced school life?" have we asked the students what they think? Surely they should come first, teachers second, parents third followed by ESF.
Just some thoughts from an old dog who remembers every trip and activity he did at school but could not remember a single lesson and still mananged to scrape through life with 2 degrees.
Here are some more numbers: Current Timetable Model 5 days, @ 4 Periods, 75 mins long, students spend 1500 mins in lessons Double it to give two weeks, students spend 3000 mins in lessons studying for GCSEs and IB Proposed 9+1 Timetable Model 9 days, @ 5 periods, 60 mins long, students spend 2700 mins in lessons studying for GCSEs and IB
There are many points to discuss with all of the proposed changes
1)Do we need this many changes in one go? Is it not too much to implement and make meaningful for the next academic year? Moodle, vertical tutoring, and major changes to the timetable.
2) If lateness to lesson is an issue, changing the timetable seems a strange way to resolve it. Surely this should be addressed instantly not just by individual teachers but with a whole school approach. How about the return to school detentions where students, if organised properly, will be quickly noticed and dealt with?
3) This is my major concern, have we been given and enough information to make an informed decision? How is the extra 5 periods allocated? It seems many subjects will loose out and very few subjects gain. Will practical subjects be able to have double lessons? We not seen even one model Friday? The flexible Fridays must be educational and meaningful for each child, do we have time to make this true for the next academic year?
4) Vertical tutoring - what is the rationale behind two separate sections. Why not a truly vertical tutoring system for all years? This to me seems to take the whole 'philosophy' of board and share the work load.
5)I have no problem with the five period day but I need to know how much non-contact time teachers will receive. Five periods would mean increasing teachers planning and preparation time by a minimum 25%. Will this be reflected in the timetable? I am currently teaching IGCSE and IB for the first time and find the planning extremely time consuming.
6) How will the five period day affect CAS activities? The college should be proud of the amount and variety of activities available. I personally could not offer so many with shorter breaks and extra lessons.
7) What other models have bee considered, should we not be considering more than one option? As SC mentioned many ideas were given on 'Sugar Paper Monday'.
I am very supportive of vertical tutoring - the benefits I experienced in my previous school include students acting as leaders in different areas for one another, informal mentoring relationships being formed across ages and stages, care and support through difficult transitions by those who had been there before, help with bullying etc etc
ReplyDeleteI am neutral towards the five period day, although I would like to see a timetable that has some built in collaborative time like at SIS.
I am hesitant to support the idea of a nine day cycle without some more ideas about how the tenth day would be used, who would be responsible for its operation and how it would be planned.
First
I think that a change in the school day is a good idea and will give us much greater flexibility in our approach. I think rationalising activities into one designated day where possible is an excellent idea. But I still think the students should be on timetable unless they are involved in an activity.
ReplyDeleteI have reservations about the whole day one in 10 being entirely off timetable (at least at first). As somebody who helped trial the inquiry project, I am open to new styles of teaching and learning, and believe we should continue to develop these alongside some more traditional approaches. However to fill one entire day in 10 for a whole year, next year seems too much too soon, especially when we will not yet be a one to one laptop school. New initiatives will be planned hastily and students may not value the day.
But I do think that significant blocks time off timetable for service projects, trips etc. could take place on designated days. Why not have a nine day timetable with each of the nine days then repeated over nine fortnights on the '2nd Friday'? Keep those students who are not in activities in normal lessons but have their teacher not plan new material; just help with coursework, revision, study etc. as they know that several students or all may be missing due to well planned and therefore worthwhile activities.
JB
Cross Curricular, Units of Inquiry, Thematic Days
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding of cross curricular days needs to be expanded, and better understood. - Even Jay's report from last years experienced expressed that staff need a level of CPD. PYP and plain old UK National Curriculum for Primary pupils who normally have just one teacher for every discrete subject, follow themes, and apply the same theme or Unit of Inquiry to each of the discrete subject areas, ensuring that math, English, art, geography, history, technology, ICT, and music, etc. are all covered during the week / two weeks.
For health week, English, Business, MFL, PE, Design Technology, ICT, and Food Technology were involved, with promoting Health week. Working within our departments we came up schemes of work, and ONE period of collaboration, finalized the planning for the cross collaboration - Advantages we took aspects of our own curriculum, and applied the thematic unit of enquiry, this ensured that students did not miss any aspects of their main curriculum development in each of their subjects, but teachers understood what the other teachers were teaching during that week and were able to refer to it, so for example students were writing advertising slogans for a fitness bar that they made in food tech, packaged in D&T, analysed the effects and the relationship of eating nutrition bars and exercise in PE...Labelling and advertising in different languages and costing and marketing in Business.. Music, Art, Math, Science, Geography, History, IPSE could all be involved. Students are not disrupted, not moved about the school into different areas, teachers are not being asked to teach out of their subject area, but are asked to coordinate collaboratively to consider how they can support a thematic line of inquiry using existing parts of their curriculum.
Other suggestions for thematic weeks: We already have Reading /Book week and Maths week, we could have an Arts week in which young musicians takes place, or the school production, etc. There could be a Humanities themed week with the geography field trips taking place this week, and we already have a science competition for Year 9s this could form the basis of a science week.
The other ESF schools through various timetabling arrangement, students have a free afternoon or morning, Timetabling is covered (hours etc) and the staff have meetings, preparation time cross curricular discussions on a weekly basis
ReplyDeleteIdentify what teachers want to do with the time that is being created, most of the so called consulattion as I recall identified that teachers need more time to spend within their department planning, developing the curriculum creating resources (even more with the new Moodle). All our subjects are organic and need development to be up-to-date, including the latest research, technology, and teaching ideas.
So Why haven't we explored these arrangements? And why are we trying to reinvent the wheel and in the process making it square?
My best suggestion is a 5 day timetable continually rolling on untill the end of June when nobody will mind which day of the week we finish on.
ReplyDeleteFor example: if Friday is sport day, then Monday is Day 5, but if Thursday is a public holiday or a typhoon then Friday is day 4.
At the end of term when only P1 is taught, then this could be used in a different way with long practical tutor periods even asking students to attend by appointment with a final registration 10 mins before the end of term assembly - this would happen three times a year and be discounted as a teaching day, Thus number of 'off curriculum' timetable days can be reduced from 19 to a much smaller acceptable and manageable amount.
My greatest concern are the proposed increase from 4 to 5 periods a day, from a teachers perspective that would require more time for planning and preparation, are we getting more time? At GCSE and IB are we going to get much smaller class sizes so that we can attend to our students needs more effectively in the short 60 mins As it was suggested that the vertical tutoring would in fact reduce our non-contact time? and students would definitely see an increase in homework tasks if being asked to attend five different lessons
Finally...
Reduce movement around the school, only specialist subjects, D&T, Science, Art, Music, PE, all other lessons students stay put and teachers move around the school.
1. Flexible Friday’s
ReplyDelete• I welcome the idea of a 10th day for activities and events that usually disrupt the curriculum.
• This will give us the opportunity for Art (for instance) to offer a number of activities that we would hesitate to offer currently, due to the disruption this could cause.
• It will be very helpful, the rest of the time, to find that our curriculum time was not interrupted; this would be a huge improvement on the current situation.
• The SLT would need to manage this time and ensure that the same staff were not over-burdened with planning all of the time. If every teacher pulls together, this could be a great success.
2. 5 x 1-hour lessons
• A 60 minute lesson is simply not long enough for many of the activities that we teach.
• Ceramics, for instance, can take about 15 minutes to set up and another 15 minutes to pack away and clear up. This could not be taught well during one-hour lessons and the same could apply to many other Art activities.
• We make very good use of the 75 minute lessons. We have really needed this time.
• We have already had our time reduced this past couple of years (80 mins – 75 mins).
• Many schools do operate with a 5 (60 minute) lesson day. I wonder how important the Arts are in those schools and how successful the Arts are.
• Would our GCSE students be reduced to 2 x 1 hour lessons per week? This would not be enough. How much time for IB?
• The idea of arranging the timetable in a more flexible manner, allowing for 1.5 hour lessons for certain subjects sounds practical and would certainly suit our needs.
• Perhaps, there could even be 2-hour blocks for IB lessons at times; this would be excellent.
3. 10 Minute Registration
• The opportunity for the students to touch-base with their Form Tutor every morning is seen as being important for a variety of reasons. It would be a pity if this opportunity were missed.
• If there is a change in timetable for next year and a flexible Friday, I feel that it will be easier to facilitate under the present tutor system. To change too many things at once seems unwise. Why not establish the timetable changes etc. and then properly discuss the Pastoral changes and deal with these at a later time.
A couple of points from me regarding the STC change agenda.
ReplyDeleteI believe that vertical tutoring would be beneficial in all of the ways Stewart mentioned above and very much welcome it.
Regarding the movement to a 5 period day, I have lots of misgivings, both about the rationale behind it and the practicalities of implementing it. Firstly, if my maths is correct (and given that when I was taught GCSE maths we only had two 1hr 20min periods per week, it probably isn't)we are effectively 'creating' 5 additional periods in a 2 week cycle. What thought has been given to the equitable distribution of these periods? Let's say for example that Business Studies isn't one of the lucky winners, then it seems to me that my teaching time with GCSE groups, say, could fall from 5 hrs (4 x 1.25 hrs) to 4 hrs (4 x 1 hr) per fortnight. Are we simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, to use a cliche.
Secondly, there is a lot more planning and assessment time for a 5 period day as Jutka mentioned earlier. 4 period teaching days at STC are manageable with long break and lunchtime to prepare resources and carry out assessment etc. Adding an extra period and reducing breaks will be quite a big shift in pace and I am not sure that this will have a beneficial impact on our outcomes. Now it is true that other schools (like the one I came from in the UK) teach 5 period days with short breaks. Whilst this is true, it is also often true that non-PE staff have little commitment to offering extra curricular activities at the end of a day where they have hardly had time to eat (no exaggeration, my porkiness on arrival was down to post-work comfort eating). I would refute any suggestion that this is down to a reluctance to 'work harder'. We all work terribly hard as things stand. The question is, will more teaching periods deliver better outcomes and enhance teaching and learning? I am yet to be convinced that it will.
Another point that was mentioned is that due to students arriving late etc we often don't teach full 1hr15min lessons. If this is an issue that these changes are designed to address then I believe giving students more periods to be late to is a curious way of solving it. If it is true that colleagues are 'wasting' time at the beginning and end of lessons then surely these 1 hr lessons will now become 50 minute lessons?
ReplyDeleteI think that one of the principal arguments for the model is tackling disruption to the curriculum. I believe that several solutions to solve the problem were discussed on 'Sugarpaper Monday' , many of which would present less upheaval than the one proposed. I find it odd that despite this fact there is only one model up for discussion and no alternative strategies for our consideration. Whilst I accept that the need for a quick turnaround time is probably the reason for this, it is important we look at all options in my opinion.
In terms of the new Fridays, I am very much with Stewart that we need to have a better idea of how these would work. Many questions are still to be answered in terms of what will be required of staff on these days. I don't think anyone, if we're honest, is comfortable with the idea of 'babysitting' the half of year 10 who are not standing in an Ox-bow lake in Tai Po with Jen Lederer. Would we operate a carousel system so all students had broadly similar experiences over the year? I think consistency is key.
Thematic days can work and I found working with colleagues from other departments during Health Week last year a very valuable experience. However, we need time to plan these events - how can this be accommodated? The SLT were right to point out the importance of these days being considered meaningful to the student body, We have 19 Fridays to plan for and to provide quality experiences for the students every fortnight will be no mean feat. I do recognise the importance of cross curricular programmes (as per the CIS-WASC review) but believe that if delivered as an add-on the students may come to view them with disdain.
In addition, moving all disruption to one Friday in two cannot work 100% due to many factors beyond our control.
Finally, I take the view that it is important that we don't look upon those colleagues voicing reservations as 'inert' or 'against progress' or whatnot. Any changes that are implemented must surely raise achievement and the quality of the student experience. With the exception of vertical tutoring I think that the ideas we have been presented with will bring many new difficulties and may not fully solve the problems for which they are intended to address.
A few things:
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the premise that events/trips etc are 'interruptions to the flow of learning' as stated in the staff meeting. On the contrary, I firmly believe that these events enhance learning and contribute to school life. If the problem is that too many Friday lessons have been missed, then just distribute them better in the future. We are a highly effective school with great exam results, have these perceived 'disruptions' actually had effect?
I can envisage a couple of problems with the Friday proposal. Firstly what happens if we all need the same students on that day? For example there are a number of year 12's that are heavily involved with many events. Would we have to limit their involvement to avoid clashes? If so does this not dilute their school enrichment? Secondly, what happens to events that cannot take place on a Friday?
4 lesson, 5 lessons. It really does not matter, put a class in front of any good teacher and they will just get on with it. I would just urge those involved with the decision making to consider the question; "What makes a rich and enhanced school life?" have we asked the students what they think? Surely they should come first, teachers second, parents third followed by ESF.
Just some thoughts from an old dog who remembers every trip and activity he did at school but could not remember a single lesson and still mananged to scrape through life with 2 degrees.
Here are some more numbers:
ReplyDeleteCurrent Timetable Model
5 days, @ 4 Periods, 75 mins long, students spend 1500 mins in lessons
Double it to give two weeks, students spend 3000 mins in lessons studying for GCSEs and IB
Proposed 9+1 Timetable Model
9 days, @ 5 periods, 60 mins long, students spend 2700 mins in lessons studying for GCSEs and IB
There are many points to discuss with all of the proposed changes
ReplyDelete1)Do we need this many changes in one go? Is it not too much to implement and make meaningful for the next academic year? Moodle, vertical tutoring, and major changes to the timetable.
2) If lateness to lesson is an issue, changing the timetable seems a strange way to resolve it. Surely this should be addressed instantly not just by individual teachers but with a whole school approach. How about the return to school detentions where students, if organised properly, will be quickly noticed and dealt with?
3) This is my major concern, have we been given and enough information to make an informed decision? How is the extra 5 periods allocated? It seems many subjects will loose out and very few subjects gain. Will practical subjects be able to have double lessons? We not seen even one model Friday? The flexible Fridays must be educational and meaningful for each child, do we have time to make this true for the next academic year?
4) Vertical tutoring - what is the rationale behind two separate sections. Why not a truly vertical tutoring system for all years? This to me seems to take the whole 'philosophy' of board and share the work load.
5)I have no problem with the five period day but I need to know how much non-contact time teachers will receive. Five periods would mean increasing teachers planning and preparation time by a minimum 25%. Will this be reflected in the timetable? I am currently teaching IGCSE and IB for the first time and find the planning extremely time consuming.
6) How will the five period day affect CAS activities? The college should be proud of the amount and variety of activities available. I personally could not offer so many with shorter breaks and extra lessons.
7) What other models have bee considered, should we not be considering more than one option? As SC mentioned many ideas were given on 'Sugar Paper Monday'.