Learning to Learn impact on history teaching timetable
#1
Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:53 AM
#2
Posted 29 June 2012 - 01:21 PM
#3
Posted 29 June 2012 - 01:27 PM
but in reality i am concerned that SLT are being short sighted here and the overall impact on history could be bad.
they are clearly ignoring Ebacc
#4
Posted 29 June 2012 - 02:11 PM
#5
Posted 30 June 2012 - 08:47 PM
i am told that ofsted love this idea.
When this was imposed upon me I simply included a scattering of comments in the dept. SEF stating where progress would be hindered, I wrote a Year 7 overview assessment for the end of the year, which gave me evidence of regression (as I planned) then wrote a 2 year KS3, and added this to the SEF, showing how the GCSE students would be affected.
I know it is hard, but I would recommend that you have nothing to do with the L2L and simply produce a reduced programme for Y7s and make sure you explain why the Y8s begin at such a low level, I say it is hard as I spent two years having my levels altered by SLT as they were 'lower than their English'.
stick to your guns and let the L2L programme crumble.
"Had Churchill been a stable and equable man, he could never have inspired the nation. In 1940, when all the odds were against Britain, a leader of sober judgement might well have concluded we were finished. - Anthony Storr
#6
Posted 01 July 2012 - 01:10 PM
#7
Posted 01 July 2012 - 09:06 PM
from what Ade and Tony say i may have to be patient and wait for someone to realise it is a bad idea.
Tony can you tell me if your L2L did actually crumble and how long it took?
thanks for your advice, i think i will ignore requests to be involved then, not that they listen to me much when they introduced it.
history was shoe horned into a module about magic so i withdrew my advice.
this is the problem when non specialist are given a new project to do to justify their AST role (in dance of all things)
#8
Posted 01 July 2012 - 10:46 PM
the head left the year after me, so it went with himTony can you tell me if your L2L did actually crumble and how long it took?
"Had Churchill been a stable and equable man, he could never have inspired the nation. In 1940, when all the odds were against Britain, a leader of sober judgement might well have concluded we were finished. - Anthony Storr
#9
Posted 02 July 2012 - 07:09 AM
history was shoe horned into a module about magic so i withdrew my advice.
this is the problem when non specialist are given a new project to do to justify their AST role (in dance of all things)
I'm tempted to say that if Mr Gove gets to read this it will confirm all his and his supporters worst opinions on state education... I mean, it isn't April 1st is it?
#10
Posted 02 July 2012 - 11:14 AM
cant help but feel the same
but at least with the comments being made here i know i am right to be concerned.
#11
Posted 09 July 2012 - 11:23 AM
We all replied that if they told us what they did, we may be able to comment! So far no answer!
We also have 100 minutes lesson, which have had a massive impact on time. In year 9 for example, students went from 240 minutes every 2 weeks to 150 = 90 mins lost every 2 weeks.
This works out to around 18 hours a year - easily half a term
There seems to be a 'Hit History' squad - maybe Mr Gove will sort this! Can't believe I just said that!
#12
Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:32 PM
thank god for that
many staff being given this to teach began to cause problems
teaching the y8s that did this last year has shown me just how useless it is anyway.
have had to start y8 with them revisiting some important y7 history.
cant see what learnign skills they have accumulated yet but listening and participating in their own learning isnt one of them.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users












