Working towards a more evidence informed Professional Development Review process.

My school is currently reviewing our PDR process. As the new head of senior maths this is a really crucial time for me to step up and try to bring some things to the table that will ensure that, as a team, the senior maths teachers are teaching in an evidence informed fashion.

I’m posting now, prior to submitting final ideas to our college, in order to share some thoughts and hopefully open up a discussion with others so that I can improve and optimise this process.

In partnership with my colleagues we’ve brought in a whole new instructional process this year at our senior college. At the moment we’re working on bedding it down, and having imput into the PDR process means ensuring that we’re all being asked by leadership to provide evidence for instructional practices that we actually think are going to contribute to student learning.

I’ve drafted the document below as a list of things that I myself would like to be measured against and I’m looking to take this to our maths team meeting soon to see if there’s anything that the team would like to add or subtract as we make our submission to leadership. (Hover over the top right of the doc to open in a new page).

I’d love any thoughts or comments on what I’ve put together thus far and how it can be improved.

Note: The ‘goals’ across the top come from our pre-existing PDR process. They’re non-negotiable so each of the elements I’ve included below will fit under those three goal headings (I’ll work out which goes where later, they’re each broad enough that alignment shouldn’t be an issue).

Note 2: SIM stands for ‘Sunshine Instructional Model’, we have a pre-established instructional model so I’ve just highlighted the main points that I think map really well onto that.

Any thoughts or comments appreciatively received : )

Ollie.

Edit, I have replaced the original version with the most recent version, as attached below.