Advanced search

Workload survey outcome

(14 Posts)
rollonthesummer Sat 26-Mar-16 23:11:46


Released on the Easter weekend!!

OP’s posts: |
BackforGood Sat 26-Mar-16 23:23:23

Doesn't really go into much specifics does it? Lot of woolly 'politician promises' from what I can see.

DitheringDiva Sun 27-Mar-16 09:26:23

I read the report from the marking policy review group and thought that was really good, but that was written by teachers and not politicians. Haven't read the reports from the other 2 groups yet.

Fedup21 Mon 28-Mar-16 10:55:31

I suppose it just depends on how they implement it. Unless Ofsted mark schools down for spending hours marking in green/pink/purple pens-it probably won't stop?!

rollonthesummer Mon 28-Mar-16 10:56:49

I've put this on another post but did anyone see something about only entering data three times a year? I can't find it for a minute but I'm sure I read it in the report?

We input tracking data 6 times a year (primary-every half term) will this now go back to 3 as it used to be?

OP’s posts: |
PenelopePitstops Mon 28-Mar-16 11:01:20

Inputting data isn't too time consuming though. It's the marking that is. I'd love to see ofsted completely refresh marking guidance.

BatmanLovesPeaceAndQuiet Mon 28-Mar-16 11:06:37

The problem with the data inputting is:

We currently also input half termly. We use Target Tracker and have to highlight the NC statements as and when children achieve them. This contributes to an overall picture of where they are. Reducing it to 3x yearly will just double the workload at those points. The problem hasn't been understood by the working party.

However - the marking and feedback document is interesting and I will be pointing out points 3, 17 (and 24!) at the next staff meeting. There's quite a lot in there that my school can work with, I think.

rollonthesummer Mon 28-Mar-16 11:07:37

It's not the inputting data, it's the providing evidence that 30 children meet the level each half term that takes the time. Our new levels are complicated and ambiguous and all the school sheets require a lot of highlighting. If it was only three times a year-it would've much easier.

I agree re wanting new guidance. It's not enough to say 'we don't expect gold plated marking' or whatever bollocks it said (deep marking? it certainly avoided the term triple marking). We need far more clarity otherwise my SLT will just say we're not doing enough and need to do more 'just in case Ofsted come'.

What would 'we' like the marking guidance to say-maybe we should write our own and suggest it to them!?

OP’s posts: |
Fedup21 Mon 28-Mar-16 11:11:15

What were 3, 17 and 24? Remind me!

We use target tracker (steps) and the highlighting is a nightmare. Scrolling down the screen makes my eyes go funny! Also, in TT, you highlight red for working towards, blue for achieved and gold for mastery, yet the maths course I went I recently said mastery was just 'expected' and that's what everyone should be able to get. So 'greater depth' is not mastery?! so something is muddled there?

BatmanLovesPeaceAndQuiet Mon 28-Mar-16 11:12:20

It did say it was using the term 'deep marking' as a synonym of quality marking and triple marking. They've chosen the most impressive sounding one though, haven't they? You can imagine a non-teacher saying 'Deep marking? Lazy teachers want to make a half arsed effort' compared to 'Triple marking? What insanity is this?' grin

You're right re: the highlighting. And the woolliness of it all. And the constant contradictions in the guidance. We've had the rug pulled from under us and we're discovering the floor under that rug is made of banana skins.

rollonthesummer Mon 28-Mar-16 11:14:07

I agree, triple marking is pretty clear and self explanatory. Quality marking isn't synonymous with that really as that could/should be effective and simple?!

OP’s posts: |
partystress Mon 28-Mar-16 13:49:14

'Fully resourced schemes of work should be available at the start of every term'. On the one hand, this sounds great. OTOH, when you have the time, this is where it becomes really satisfying - pulling together different aspects of what you have been learning, tying it in to your class's interests. Good skeleton SoWs, with collections of resources, and more non-contact time to plan for your own teaching would be my preference. Unless, of course, we are heading for scripts and unqualified teachers....

rollonthesummer Mon 28-Mar-16 16:14:38

Who is going to provide these 'fully resourced' schemes of work?

OP’s posts: |
icklekid Mon 28-Mar-16 16:31:46

Does anyone in primary rely on a scheme of work for the term? We do detailed long term and medium term plans. Teachers can then use them to adapt as fits their class/work in teams for year groups.

A lot of the marking policy one I agree with and have implemented however no mention of responding to marking surprises me. If ofsted are genuinely not allowed to look for it then great but seems to have been a push over last few years.

Data entry is hilarious because without a national leveled scheme everywhere is going to be working on totally different schemes with different expectations of workload etc. If they wanted to reduce teacher workload provide something to go from not just all schools should create something that works for them.

I've read lots of case studies on their blog but also lots of washy statements like we won't change things in the year unless we have no choice! Everything has a cop out so if they need to change it they can which frustrates me!

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in