How do we use the National Curriculum Physical Education Programme of Study for (NCPE PoS) as a reference point to design a physical education programme that supports inclusive mastery learning?

The NCPE PoS (2013) specifies not only the range of contexts and to some degree the content, but it also specifies the criteria for assessment. It is a minimum entitlement. In planning an appropriate PE programme for all learners, teachers will set objectives, select content, learning tasks and activities, and then select teaching methods and resources, all of which should promote deep or mastery learning.

 

One thing is certain; teachers must take ownership for designing the curriculum as the NCPE is not specified in six activity areas or range of content as previously. The old frameworks are inappropriate, not least because they outlined content, but also because the PoS content was largely ignored and schools taught to the levels. All too typically activities or content were arranged in half-term blocks, and a ‘one-skill per week’ approach was embraced, which was not and is still not in any way conducive to learners engaging in deep learning of skills or concepts. If we are to raise learner’s knowledge and understanding of key skills, essential knowledge and concepts, and vital behaviours, then we need to have a clear idea of what these skills, concepts and behaviours are and look like, and then develop coherent and continuous learning opportunity that allows children to progress by embedding learning at each key stage.

 

So, where do we start?

The NCPE PoS provides a reference point for our planning. The new PE PoS outlines ‘that which is to be taught’ with ‘that which is to be assessed’. This is different to previously where the PE PoS and the attainment target were a separate entity. The attainment target or the standard expected at each key stage is currently written integral to the PE PoS.  The standard expected therefore, becomes the point that we plan backwards from. We start with the end in mind. We are clear about our intended destination.

 

What next?

The next consideration should be the learners themselves and their starting points, followed by the development of key learning intentions and associated success criteria. This learning should be sequenced, ‘scaffolded’ and combined so that learning is progressive, continuous and coherent. The duration and order of activities should be carefully considered so that learning can be mastered. Finally, we need to effectively articulate tasks to all learners in ways that key intentions are understood and mastered.

 

Effective curriculum design focuses on learning and the learner rather than planning learning unthinkingly around content delivered in half-term blocks, ‘because we’ve always done it that way’. An effective curriculum design approach is one that is continuously evolving around learners needs. It is about curriculum, assessment, teaching and learning.  This interrelationship can promote engagement and understanding, rather than just knowledge and recall. Understanding, simply defined, is knowledge that is operant. Curriculum design that promotes deep learning, that promotes mastery, that promotes understanding, is essential in realising NCPE PoS aims. Knowledge of physical activity, knowledge of healthy active lifestyles, is not the same as knowledge that is operant, or engaging in regular physical activity as part of a healthy active lifestyle.

 

The national curriculum provides an exciting opportunity for schools to think deeply about how they organise their Physical Education programmes.

 

Curriculum design for mastery learning courses, hosted by afTLC Ltd to support you in raising standards are scheduled for:

Friday 23rd June 2017, Garston, Liverpool

Monday 26th June 2017, Wychbold, Worcestershire

Issues with ‘I can’ statements

Are we there yet?: Standards based assessment for mastery learning in physical education – issues with ‘I can’ statements.  

When working with primary schools or running primary assessment courses since level descriptors were removed from the system, I have become increasingly concerned at the number of schools continuing to use or starting to use ‘I can’ statements.  Not only does this approach increase teacher workload, potentially prevent a growth mind set for children, and create what is essentially a checklist, but it also totally ignores the complexity and interconnected nature of learning.

The system approach to assessment and curriculum has transformed, yet teacher practice has not yet moved away from its previous practice.  In order to address this state of affairs I wish to confront poor or limiting practice.  When my three children were younger and we travelled for any length of time in the car, they would continuously ask “Are we there yet?” Years later, they see the journey as part of the excursion or holiday and very much part of the process.  Are we there yet with assessment practice in PE?  ‘I can’ state… Nooooooo!

Curriculum transformation

Part of the rationale for curriculum transformation was to improve our performance from the standards plateau that as a country we found ourselves experiencing, and reduce the burden of administration for teachers, especially around assessment.  The reformed National Curriculum has been developed around a mastery or standards-based approach which has meant refocussing on less content but in greater depth, and moving learners on only when they have mastered a skill or a concept. Part of the rationale for the removal of levels from the system measure was for teachers not to feel so pressurised to constantly race through a level, but to spend time deepening and embedding learning.  Viewed in this way, learning and progress become more than just a linear or ladder approach, progress becomes 4 dimensional.  The new standards developed (for physical education and other ‘foundation’ subjects) are key stage standards.  The national expectation set is that all learners should ‘Master’ these new standards.  In planning to meet these new key stage ‘threshold’ or floor standards, teachers are expected to work back from the standard and ‘scaffold’ or plan progressive learning overtime – two years in key stage 1 and four years in key stage 2.

Part of the issue in physical education was that the transformation away from ‘content and coverage’ (6 activity areas) to learners and their (mastery) learning, was that primary PE teachers required more extensive subject knowledge than their training or experience had provided. Many did not (and still do not) feel confident to plan learning progressively and respond to learners’ needs, as opposed to following rigid set lesson by lesson plans. PE and Sport Premium funding is being used to address this knowledge deficit gap, but until it does the issue remains – how can we plan for mastery in PE, then teach for mastery, before we then assess for mastery, when we don’t have a grasp of what mastery looks like?

Teacher workload

So how does teacher practice manifest itself when there is a lack of subject knowledge within the system? With a plethora of meaningless checklists to somehow prove that assessment is taking place is the frank answer. Teachers and more frequently commercial companies, have attempted to deconstruct the standards into statements or targets that are hierarchical.  This series of checklists for each taught activity in PE, are too often written as ‘I can’ statements. The issue with such statements are that they are superficial and disconnected from each other.  This ‘tick box’ culture is something that led Ofsted (2007) in its report on ‘Reforming and developing the school workforce’ to pose the question in the ‘Time for Standards’ section: Ticking boxes or improving learning?” A ‘tracking’ resource I reviewed recently, listed a range of activities and a hierarchical range of ‘I can’ statements for each activity.  When the number of formal decisions a class teacher would have to make during the year is calculated (assuming 30 in the class, 12 x 6 hour units of work and an average of 9 statements per activity, with a Likert 1-5 point scale for each statement) it amounts to 16,200!

Constructing a curriculum offer that meets learners’ needs should be something that is informed and driven by assessment information for learning against standards.  Learning outcomes and success criteria are very much part of the process of planning.  These are our short and medium-term targets, so why create an additional statemented administrative layer?

You need to…

Another issue with ‘I can’ is that often children can’t.  This certainly happens when assessment points are too frequent.  Some children can and some children can’t.  The issue in primary (and often secondary) PE, is that it doesn’t matter whether children can or can’t, if it is the end of a half-term block then the activity and learning focus will change anyway! This creates a disconnect between ‘that which has been taught’ and ‘that which has been learnt’. In other words gaps in learning (or statements left unchecked) are not addressed because a different activity is taught with different statements. If practice is actually focused on mastery learning, and activities are seen as the vehicle for learning, then the duration of learning blocks should be considered and the use of assessment information to set targets for learners should be integral to this process.  “You need to” becomes a far better approach than using ‘I can’ because it promotes an ‘improving’ rather than a ‘proving’ approach for both children and teachers who engage in thinking about learning and how to improve.  ‘What do you need to do to improve your balance?’, versus ‘Can you balance on one leg for 3 seconds?’!  The targets, in this example, about how to balance, become personalised and progressive to children understanding what balance is, what moving versus static balance is, how strength and flexibility are important in achieving balance, and the interrelated attributes of agility and coordination. The interconnected complexity of learning becomes transparent and the contrast between a growth mind set and a closed mind set is obvious. Which is easier? Yes you’ve already guessed – tick a box!

Learning Complexity

When in teacher training at the University of Worcester in the 1990’s we used to use competency statements.  Tutors would tick off statements when trainee teachers demonstrated that they had met the competency.  The problem was, a trainee could have all statements checked, but still be a poor teacher.  The next year the Teacher Training Agency introduced standards, and this meant trainees had to provide reflective documentation that demonstrated they understood the interconnected nature of learning and teaching.  Statements were invalid, unreliable and insufficent for the purposes of assessment.  Any good teacher will understand that performance is made up of a number of interconnected aspects, including (but not limited to) the application of skill, thinking and decision-making, psychological factors and physical attributes including fitness.

We must move away from the checklist mentality of learning and think about learning as progressive and where learning targets are constantly revisited.  It is the process targets that are important for it is a focus on the processes that deliver the results, rather than the results themselves that drive learning and progress. CPD is required that develops teacher expertise in this respect, so that in 2020 if the PE and Sport Premium is discontinued we will have built knowledge capacity within the system and ticking boxes will be a thing of the past.  Are we there yet? Hopefully reading this leads us on track. We’re getting there!

We are running our Standards-Based Assessment For Mastery Learning on Wednesday 28th June 2017 at the Stables, Worcestershire. Make sure you sign up for this essential CPD.

The course costs £190+VAT and includes two-course luncheon each day and unlimited tea and coffee.  It also includes a colour bound course booklet and a 2GB memory stick with background documents and the PowerPoint used and course certification.

ALSO – Receive a 50% discount off A Practical Guide to Assessing Without Levelsworth £12.50 or a reduction from your course fee.

Standards-Based Assessment for Mastery Learning

Uninformed use of 9-1 flight paths for assessment

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose – uninformed use of 9-1 flight paths for assessment

Secondary Schools that are using 9-1 GCSE summative grades to somehow demonstrate progress against curriculum standards through key stages 3 and 4 are deluded.

This is just a copycat approach to the previous system of National Curriculum Attainment targets and level descriptors. Flight paths were a phenomena developed when levels were central to the system and FFT estimates. This system was flawed and the reason why legislation removed levels from the system. Companies were tasked to develop a more equitable system measure. Progress 8 is not based on the use of levels so to return to flight paths based on 9-1 labelling is like trying to plug an analogue TV into a digital feed and expecting it to work!

“There is overwhelming evidence that levels needed to go and the Commission strongly endorses the decision to remove them. However, the system has been so conditioned by levels that there is considerable challenge in moving away from them. We have been concerned by evidence that some schools are trying to recreate levels based on the new national curriculum. Unless this is addressed, we run the risk of failing to put in place the conditions for a higher-attaining, higher-equity system.”

(Government Commission on Assessing without Levels 2015).

The use of 9-1 cannot be used to somehow track progress from year 7 because the reformed GCSE’s are designed to be a 2 year course starting in year 10.  In physical education for example core PE is 100% practical. The GCSE PE qualification which started in September 2016 is 60% assessed by exam and 40% NEA. The two don’t equate – analogue and digital again! To indicate that a year 7 pupil is currently performing at a 1 or a 2 when they have not started on the GCSE specification therefore is a waste of teacher admin time and increases meaningless workload especially at a period when workload is an issue.

In fact Ofqual, have developed grade descriptors for the reformed GCSEs to assist teachers when using the specification to plan learning by providing an indication of the likely level of performance at grades 2, 5 and 8. The purpose of these grade descriptors is to give an indication of average performance at the mid-points of grades 2, 5 and 8. Even Ofqual categorically state that “The descriptors are not designed to be used for awarding purposes, unlike the ‘grade descriptions’ that apply to legacy GCSEs graded A* to G.”  It appears that when guidance is offered to a highly qualified and experienced profession it is ignored!

What is very easy to do, however is to map key language from the National Curriculum Programme of Study for Physical Education as a reference point to the average performance descriptors for GCSE. We can make an informed professional judgement as to whether pupils are on track or otherwise to meet the physical education curriculum thresholds and where our assessment has identified any gaps do our utmost to support learners to close them. This ensures that the essential knowledge and key skills – the foundations for better grades when the specification for GCSE PE is finally followed – are mastered. This is different to professional practice that demonstrates an obsession to convert every bit of progress a learner makes into a number or a grade for internal records and reporting to parents and different to providing a 9-1 level in key stage 3 when the GCSE course is not even being engaged with.

One of the criticisms of levelling was that it labelled differential performance and did not encourage a growth mindset. There is a huge rhetoric reality gap between stating ‘we want to encourage a growth mindset’ and then using an approach that doesn’t encourage it! Learning isn’t linear and therefore a measure and practice that attempts to recognise progress in learning as linear and hierarchical is not fit for purpose and in many cases is demoralising for pupils!  This point is exacerbated when schools spend thousands of pounds on commercial tracking systems (please note this is not an assessment system), which then drives their assessment practice. A case of the tail wagging the assessment and learning dog! Assessment approaches are often driven by the commercial tracking resource to produce ‘proving’ data and not ‘improving’ assessment information.  Best practice methods as part of effective assessment systems are often disconnected from tracking systems that require precious time inputting data, that could be better used for planning, teaching and learning.

The Government Commission on Assessment recommended expressing outcomes in curriculum terms and the CIF (OFSTED 2015) even uses the term ‘Assessment information in the place of ‘data’ and then Sean Harford (National Director, Education – responsible for leading inspection policy and guidance) and John Mackintosh (John McIntosh CBE, Chairman of the Government commission on assessment and a former headmaster of the London Oratory School) appear on two videos sharing a message with schools saying that Ofsted inspectors do not want to see data spreadsheets developed from the use of numbers – rather they wish to see how schools use assessment information.

In terms of Mastery learning the profession has somewhat misunderstood the use of the term. Mastery is the expected inclusive standard. Many schools use the terms “emergent” “expected” and “exceeding”. Mastery is the expected standard for all, not something that is only achievable for a select few.  Everything we know about childhood growth and development and the performance of other high performing jurisdictions indicate that we can expect mastery for all against the new standards unless children are SEN or disabled. Yes, work back from the new curriculum thresholds but there is no defined linear route to them, therefore we should not attempt to capture this new progress using a reinvention of meaningless labelling.

Fischer Family Trust (FFT) started in 2001 with 55 Local Authorities. In 2004 all LAs were involved using FFT data. Type D Estimates (95% accurate in Eng & Maths within one estimated grade) didn’t emerge until there was sufficient ‘data’ in the system some 7 years after descriptive statistics were introduced. In ‘foundation’ subjects like PE this was as low as only 70% accurate within one estimated grade. SATS are tests in the core subjects – is it any wonder that in other subjects estimates were 30% inaccurate? Any statistician will tell you that using data that is 30% inaccurate is a total waste of time…. Yet here we go again – plus c’est la même chose – despite the legislative changes, with a re-creation of a previously data obsessed administrative rich standards plateauing system which the removal of levels had attempted to avoid!

Sign up for our Standards-Based Assessment for Mastery Learning in Physical Education running on Wednesday 28th June 2017

Paediatric First Aid Update

peadiatric-first-aid
Following on from the Department for Education’s (DfE) consultation on Paediatric First Aid requirements for Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) staff, the Level 3 Paediatric First Aid qualifications have been updated.

There have been some changes to Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria of the two units.  We are developing our scheme of work to ensure that the assessments meet the updated assessment criteria.

One of the key changes is that CPR now includes “correct placement of AED pads” and “follows AED instructions.”  We are developing our training units and clothing our manikins!

The new specification and qualification documents will be used for all our courses from 1 January 2017.

An updated paediatric first aid manual and course PowerPoint slides will be available to all course attendees.

The DfE guidance for EYFS requirements for Paediatric First Aid is still as yet, unpublished.  As soon as it is published we will make you aware.  The government response to the EYFS consolation can be found on the .GOV website.

Please contact our office 01905 886325 or isabelle@afTLC.com if you have any questions, would like to discuss any of the changes highlighted here or are interested in booking a course.

Use of the PE and sport premium for staff training

Use of the PE and sport premium for staff training – SLUK Level 5 Primary PE Specialism / Level 6 Subject Leadership

View the course details >

The results of a two year research programme was published last year into the use of PE and Sport Premium monies.

Schools welcomed the introduction of the PE and sport premium, reporting that the funds made available across 2013/14 and 2014/15 had increased the school focus on curricular and extra-curricular provision and had provided new opportunities to increase the quality of PE and sport provision in primary schools.

The premium has enabled schools to enhance both the quality and range of PE teaching and sports provision. As a result of this investment, schools reported a range of positive impacts on pupils including increased pupil engagement and participation in PE and sports as well as impacts on social and inter-personal skills, behaviour, and PE skills and fitness.

Schools also perceived positive impacts on the skills and confidence of teachers to deliver PE.

The findings of this study have also highlighted challenges for the future of PE and sport in primary schools. To sustain the impact of the premium, schools have used it to invest in training for existing staff.

However, a question remains over how to maintain this investment in CPD for new teachers entering the profession, once premium funding ends. Schools also raised issues related to sourcing good quality provision in their local area, and may need further support to robustly assess the quality of the provision available. The survey also found that monitoring and evaluation of the premium was not consistent and schools may require further advice and guidance to support them to first assess impacts and then put in place strategies for continuing quality improvement.

(The PE and sport premium: an investigation in primary schools Research report: November 2015)

How to use the PE and sport premium

Schools must use the funding to make additional and sustainable improvements to the quality of PE and sport they offer.

This means that you should use the premium to:

  • develop or add to the PE and sport activities that your school already offers
  • make improvements now that will benefit pupils joining the school in future years

For example, you can use your funding to:

  • hire qualified sports coaches to work with teachers
  • provide existing staff with training or resources to help them teach PE and sport more effectively (e.g. Sports Leaders UK Level 5 Primary PE Specialism Certificate / Level 6 Subject Leadership Award).  The Level 5/6 qualifications have previously received endorsement from Edward Timpson MP when Minister for Children and Families at an Association for Physical Education Conference: “The Level 5/6 qualifications are already giving generalist teachers the chance to specialise on the job… That’s great news.”
  • introduce new sports or activities and encourage more pupils to take up sport
  • support and involve the least active children by running or extending school sports clubs, holiday clubs and Change4Lifeclubs
  • run sport competitions
  • increase pupils’ participation in the School Games
  • run sports activities with other schools

You should not use your funding to:

  • employ coaches or specialist teachers to cover planning preparation and assessment (PPA) arrangements – these should come out of your core staffing budgets
  • teach the minimum requirements of the national curriculum – including those specified for swimming (or, in the case of academies and free schools, to teach your existing PE curriculum)

If your school receives PE (physical education) and sport premium funding, you must publish:

  • how much funding you received
  • a full breakdown of how you’ve spent the funding or will spend the funding
  • the effect of the premium on pupils’ PE and sport participation and attainment
  • how you’ll make sure these improvements are sustainable

Lest we forget

The importance of subject leadership and use of assessment information: The Somme, July 1st 1916

  • 11 Divisions of the British Army Attack along a 25 mile front following 7 day artillery barrage
  • Few gains made with most Units back at their start by the end of the day
  • 60,000 casualties on this day including 20,000 deaths
  • Worst ever tragedy in history of British Army

somme

Lessons learnt by the British Army on The Somme?

Before:

  • Rigid plan to be executed come what may
  • Strict timetable to be adhered to
  • Inflexible decision-making;
  • Carried out by unimaginative generals
  • Often a long distance behind the attacking front line
  • (Mis)informed by poor communications

After:

  • Decision-making power granted down the chain of command to meet the needs of each situation as it arose
  • Initial plans provided outline for attacks
  • Outline timetable allowed for flexibility
  • Details ‘filled in’ by those ‘at the front’
  • Flexible, ‘on the spot’ proactive and reactive decisions made – determined by course of events

Standards-based Assessment for Mastery Learning in Physical Education course

This standards-based assessment course in Physical Education is being run on:

Friday 12th May 2017 – Droylsden, Manchester

Friday 19th May 2017 – Garston, Liverpool

Wednesday 28th June 2017 – Wychbold, Worcestershire

Friday 30th June 2017 – Epsom, London

 

The cost is only £190+vat and you will also receive 50% off afPE assessment book available to purchase for £12.50 or £12.50 course fee reduction if you already have the book

Also included is a colour bound booklet with a 2GB USB (containing 70+ files), lunch and refreshments.

 

This course will answer the following questions:

  • Why were levels removed?
  • Why shouldn’t we reinvent our own levels?
  • What are the different functions of and theory behind system measures, summative assessment and formative assessment?
  • What is the difference between ‘judging’ activities and ‘judging’ learning, progress and standards in Physical Education?
  • Why are ‘I can’ statements and use of 9-1 grading systems to assess and track pupils’ progress in core PE a waste of our precious time?
  • How do we achieve more progress, higher standards and more inclusive practice in PE?
  • How do we evidence progress in Physical Education?
  • How do we reduce the administrative burden of assessment in PE?
  • What is mastery curriculum, mastery teaching and learning and mastery assessment in a Physical Education context?
  • What assessment practice does Ofsted look for?

Standards-based education

In education, the term standards-based refers to systems of planning, teaching, assessment and academic reporting that are based on students demonstrating understanding or mastery of the knowledge and skills they are expected to learn as they progress through their education. In a school that uses standards-based approaches to educating students, learning standards—i.e., what students are expected to know and be able to do at a specific stage of their education—determine the objectives and outcomes of a lesson or unit, and teachers then determine how and what to teach students so they achieve the learning expectations described in the standards.

In English state schools, a standards-based national curriculum was introduced on the 1st September 2014.  Deep learning or ‘mastery’ is something that is expected for all learners, and to achieve this we must first design and plan a curriculum that allows for mastery, before we can teach for mastery and before we then develop an assessment system that is fit for an inclusive mastery purpose. The Programmes of Study for all subjects have been slimmed down to promote less content in greater depth and a focus on key skills, essential knowledge and concepts and vital behaviours that we can expect all learners to master by the end of the various key stages.  The removal of levels from the system was intended to ensure a child-centred standards-based improving approach that drives transformational change.

Terminology

In most cases, ‘standards-based learning’, ‘standards-based instruction’ (teaching), or ‘standards-based education’ (and other similar terms), are synonyms for ‘proficiency-based learning’ or ‘competency-based learning’ (two terms that are themselves synonymous). Defining standards-based learning is further complicated by the fact that educators not only use a wide variety of terms for the general approach, but the terms may or may not be used synonymously from place to place. A few of the other common synonyms include mastery-based, outcome-based, and performance-based education, instruction, or learning, among others.

Standards referenced or standards based.

One of the things we will need to be clear about is whether we are moving to a ‘standards referenced’ or ‘standards based’ approach.  What is the difference?

In a standards-referenced approach we plan and teach a standards-referenced curriculum and may administer an assessment in the form of a written test.  A student may score 75% on the test and similar marks on future tests. This can be averaged out and at the end of a year for any given group, there could be a range of individual percentages from 45% to 85% which might be grade banded.  An issue with this approach is that a student with an average score of 75% has not mastered 25% of the standard and because of the average it is unclear as to what they should be targeting.

In a standards-based approach mastery is expected and students do not move on until they can demonstrate the full standard.  In a test this would mean attaining 100%.  In a physical education setting, this would mean demonstrating the application of a skill, a concept or a behaviour in a number of different activities a majority of the time (in a competitive games situation for example students are unlikely to attain perfection).

THE HOTTEST DAY OF THE YEAR!

On the hottest day of the year, The Stables was open for business as usual providing a chilled yet business like atmosphere. The business centre was being used as a hot office by 3 clients who were thoroughly enjoying the weather they were experiencing.

Throughout the day the clients were being regularly provided with ice cold, refreshing chilled water and freshly made tea and biscuits. For lunch the clients ordered a panini each which was served with salad and a bowl of crisps. Due to the extreme 35⁰ C heat that the UK was experiencing, complimentary ice creams were kindly provided by the catering department which is based on site.

During their break-times clients enjoyed the scenic views from the decking area at the rear of the centre, relaxing in the sun and discussing business related and other matters.

Physical Education National updates courses

NEW COURSE: Wednesday 20th July & Wednesday 7th September 2016 – Already know about what is happening in Physical Education nationally but haven’t the time to attend 5 different courses over 1-2 years to find out more? If the answer is yes then this is the course for you. Not only do you get to relax in picturesque Worcestershire countryside, but you also get access to an Award winning tutor with national and international acclaim!

Andrew Frapwell, who received a Leadership & influence award from afPE at this year’s national conference is pooling his vast experience to piece together key information required for a higher performing, more equitable system that ensures not only compliance but also value added.

physical-education-and-school-sport

Andrew is using his own teaching background, his international experience developing assessment and curriculum for international countries, his insight into Assessing without Levels including authoring a book on the same title, his role as Ofqual subject expert leading the review of PE qualifications and his vast facilitation experience globally to structure a course that includes the following:

 

  • Physical Education Mastery – what does it look like? How do we achieve it?
  • Assessing without Levels – for greater inclusive progress, higher standards and less admin for teachers. A simple effective framework is presented and new standards are shared
  • Effective curriculum design – a mastery curriculum providing greater opportunity for higher standards
  • The new GCSEs, GCE AS & A Levels. Insight is provided in to the changes towards a higher performing system and how to achieve great results in the short and longer term
  • Why using the new 9-1 GCSE grades for assessment in KS3 to estimate grades in GCSE PE at KS4 is a nonsense with the new measures introduced for league tables from 2016

Contact us today to sign up for this invaluable course.

The cost is £190+ vat and includes handouts, 2GB memory stick with background documents and 2 course luncheon

Worcestershire businessman receives National Award

On Tuesday evening at the Association for Physical Education’s (afPE) Annual Conference Dinner, held at the National Football Centre, St George’s Park, Andrew Frapwell was presented with the ‘Award for Leadership & Influence.

Andrew who is the founder and owner of af Thinking & Learning Company Ltd., based in Wychbold, was both surprised and extremely honoured.

“To be recognised by fellow colleagues in this way is both humbling yet very gratifying” “You try and make a difference to fellow teaching professionals and support their work in providing the best possible experience for children and young people in schools and you don’t think about awards”

The Award was presented to Andrew by Sue Wilkinson afPE’s Strategic Lead and he was nominated by Eileen Marchant MBE, JP and Steve Caldecott who is Head of Quality at UCFB and carries out school and college inspection work for Ofsted Inspection).

The nominations drew attention to Andrew’s vast experience across the sector, and his innovative work on Assessing without Levels in schools. In addition the reach and impact of his work on teachers and coaches was highlighted since 1996 when he led the PGCE Secondary PE Course at the University of Worcester.

award

You don’t win Awards like this by doing stuff on your own.  Some people throw bricks at you, some people give you bricks – some help, some don’t, but they all contribute to the foundations for success

Award Information: Award for Leadership & Influence
To be awarded for making a difference at regional/national level