Report on the review of the Physics S3 teacher training and support scheme
Background
The first review of the pilot scheme for the Physics S3 training scheme was carried out
by Derek Turner and Ian Power in February 2011.
The report recommended ISI
accreditation of the scheme for an initial two-year period followed by a further review.
This report noted that the scheme was entering a phased expansion and that a further
review would be necessary before an extended accreditation could be granted.
The Review
The review process commenced with a visit to observe technician and teacher training at
the Buxton School, Leytonstone in May 2014; this included interviews with participants,
trustees of the scheme and trainers, and a detailed analysis of documentation.
Documentation included: minutes of trustee meetings, development plans, business
plans, and on-line materials.
The second part of the review took place in November 2014 with a visit to observe
teacher training at the Wellington Academy; this also included interviews with the Chair
of Trustees, the trainers and participants.
This report is structured under the same headings as the February 2011 report.
Aims and their achievement
Overall the scheme continues to be successful in meeting its stated aims.
The primary aim of the Physics S3 scheme is to improve the knowledge, understanding
and experience of non-specialist physics teachers and technicians.
It is clear from
observation of the training and discussions with the participants that this aim is being
achieved. Furthermore, the scheme’s trustees had planned that in the longer term this
would lead to more effective teaching and in turn improved pupil outcomes. There is
now evidence to suggest that this is occurring, most notably in one school where the
outcome of the annual analysis of comparative performance between the three
components of the AQA GCSE science examinations reveals that performance in physics
has improved significantly relative to both chemistry and biology.
The increased knowledge, understanding and confidence of the technicians are also
significant achievements.
One biology trained technician commented that she could
now see the connections between three separate experiments and was able to articulate
the underlying scientific concepts. At the same time non-specialist teachers observed
that they were now able and willing to ‘book’ a technician to work with them during
practical sessions, showing increased confidence in their own ability and that of the
technicians. One teacher observed that ‘the pupils now love practical work’ [in physics].
The scheme has also enabled non-specialist teachers and technicians from several
schools in a particular area to come together to share their knowledge, expertise and
experience.
It is clear that these connections have been maintained beyond the
discrete training periods and that the teachers and technicians feel able to draw upon
the experience of colleagues outside of their immediate environment.
The senior managers interviewed supported the view that the scheme continues to offer
excellent value and meets the needs of both teachers and pupils.
One headteacher
observed that the scheme was ‘too valuable not to find the resources for this work’.
Discussions with the trustees and trainers suggested that the support of some senior
1
managers was less enthusiastic and that this impacted on the potential success of the
scheme.
Since the first review visit the trustees have introduced a memorandum of
understanding which commits each school to two training visits each term (Appendix 1:
Memorandum of Understanding). This is proving successful and has ensured a greater
degree of continuity and progression in the training.
The heads of science at both
schools valued this commitment on the part of their headteachers and felt that they
were able to undertake long-term planning and follow-up activities.
The training model and the quality of teaching
The training model continues to be well-suited to the aims of the scheme and
the quality of the teaching remains high.
The training model continues to rely on the demonstration of experiments, clear
exposition of the underlying physics, and opportunities for teachers and technicians to
carry out the experiments themselves. This is highly effective in increasing knowledge,
understanding and confidence whilst at the same time creating an environment where
the trainees discuss ways in which what they have experienced can be incorporated into
their own classroom practice.
The flexibility of the training is a particular strength,
enabling the trainers to identify the specific needs of the teachers and trainers, and
adjust the programme accordingly. The sessions observed made very efficient use of
time and resources.
The training scheme has developed to consider how best to build upon the knowledge,
understanding and experience gained from each training session and how to ensure a
level of continuity. The best outcomes have been obtained where schools commit to a
series of three to six sessions over the course of an academic year and this experience
was the main driving force behind the recently introduced memorandum of
understanding. This is an excellent initiative.
The trainers have excellent subject knowledge and teaching skills.
They are able to
form positive, professional relationships with the trainees and have a good appreciation
of the wide range of physics backgrounds of the staff. They instil confidence and are
very skilled at explaining challenging concepts.
Preparation of the materials is
excellent, especially the experiments. Participants are encouraged to ask questions and
readily engage in discussion to further their knowledge and understanding. When asked
about the support offered by the trainers, one teacher commented, ‘we can always ask
Trevor if we have any questions. He always responds’.
During the second review visit a notable feature was the ability of both trainers to adapt
the programme to the prior knowledge of the trainees.
These sessions prompted a
steady flow of important conceptual questions and the accurately framed answers
encouraged the participants to build their understanding and gain confidence.
Additional support including on-line resources
The extensive on-line resources and dedicated telephone support provide
excellent additional materials for use by teachers and technicians. The use of
these materials has increased since the last review but this is an area that still
requires further development.
The scheme offers over two hundred on-line resources either for supporting experiments
or as presentations linked to the underlying physics. The new presentation format has
proved very popular with the teachers and has led to an increase in the use made of the
on-line resources. Teachers commented that they could use these presentations as part
2
of their own lesson planning and that this created additional time for the preparation of
experiments and other learning materials. The experimental resources are very clear
and provide all of the necessary information for both teachers and technicians.
The trainers are aware that the teachers have limited time to trawl through on-line
resources and in response have created resources that are easy to access and to use.
The frequency of use of these materials is still lower than anticipated and remains an
area in need of further development.
It is clear from discussions with the teachers that greater use is being made of the online and telephone support, something that was identified as an area for development in
the first report.
Management and future development
The scheme is managed effectively and the trustees have responded very well
to the challenges of planned expansion. The development of regional hubs has
also allowed for a local funding model that has provided greater long-term
financial security.
The scheme has grown steadily over the past three years and now has over forty schools
spread across a number of regional hubs.
The scheme is entirely dependent on
charitable donations, having removed the charge to schools after the first year. As a
consequence the funding model has changed notably in the past twelve months with
each regional project attracting specific funding e.g. the hub centred on the King’s
School, Canterbury supports nine primary schools in East Kent and received funding
from the De Haan Trust and the DfE (through the Independent State School Partnerships
fund). Details of the application for this funding are attached in Appendix 2. A new
hub centred on Tonbridge School is funded by the School and the Skinners’ Company,
and a similar arrangement has been established with the King Edward’s Foundation in
Birmingham.
The trustees have formed important links with the Harris and Oasis academy chains.
Additional funding secured through the Ogden Trust and other smaller charities has
enabled the scheme to continue to support schools that are not part of the two academy
chains or within reach of sponsoring schools such as Tonbridge and King’s Canterbury.
The trustees have recently formalised their relationship with the Institute of Physics and
this has enabled the effective sharing of resources and potential trainers.
The clear and succinct development plan has seen the creation of four geographical
hubs, each centred on one or two sponsoring independent schools: Dulwich College in
London and the South, King’s Canterbury and Tonbridge School in the South East, Truro
School in the South West, and King Edward’s Birmingham in the Midlands. This plan
has also seen leadership of the training devolved to a lead trainer in each of the hubs,
replacing the need for the previous senior lead trainer. Sponsoring independent schools
loan experienced physics teachers as trainers and also provide apparatus for the
training.
The visit to the Wellington Academy saw very effective examples of these
sponsoring arrangements with two members of the Wellington College Physics
Department helping to deliver the training as well as providing additional bespoke
apparatus.
The development plans of the past three years have been entirely dependent on the
ability to secure funding at an appropriate level. This has been very successful. The
transition to a scheme whereby funding is secured and linked directly to a group of
schools local to a sponsoring hub school has proved hugely beneficial and has been the
main reason for the rapid growth in the number of schools taking part.
3
There is no doubt that the trustees have been very successful in attracting committed,
knowledgeable and expert trainers.
The development of the hub model, with local
funding, has ensured that this team is deployed effectively and in a financially
sustainable way. Additional grants to support central administration costs have secured
the future of the scheme for at least the next three years.
The trustees have developed a comprehensive long-term evaluation policy (Appendix 3:
Quality and Assessment Criteria). This includes diagnostic tests for teachers developed
by the Institute of Physics as well as objective measures of pupil performance, mainly
through analysis of KS2 and GCSE results.
It is still too early to use such ‘hard’
evidence to judge the effectiveness of the training but the judgements made through
observation of training, interviews with participants, and scrutiny of resources indicate
that the scheme is having a positive impact on teacher knowledge and their attitudes
towards teaching the subject. It would be surprising if this did not have a long-term
impact on pupils’ learning and examination performance.
Recommendation
The Physics S3 scheme continues to meet its aims and provides important
training and development opportunities for non-specialist physics teachers and
technicians. Continued accreditation by ISI is recommended.
The scheme continues to fulfil its aims and plays an important part in improving the
quality of physics teaching in participant schools, many of whom have no specialist
physics teachers. The quality of the training is high and there is now clear evidence
that this work is having a positive and measurable impact on pupil outcomes.
The
training model and its evaluation and development are fit for purpose and enable the
aims of the scheme to be met.
At the time of the last review it was unclear whether a sustainable funding model could
be developed. Through the commitment and energy of the trustees, and most notably
the Chairman, a sustainable, local funding model has been developed and this has
secured the long-term future of the scheme.
The recommendation is that the Physics S3 continues to be accredited by the
Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI).
In addition, it would seem appropriate for
future formal reviews to take place on a four-year cycle.
Sources of evidence










Physics S3 website: www.physics-s3.org.uk
Chairman’s annual report
‘Ideas for training and hubs’. Christina Astin and Nick England
S3-success in shortage subjects: development plan, September 2014 to July
2016
Memorandum of Understanding
Independent State School Partnerships application
Minutes of trustee meetings (2013-2014)
Visit to the Buxton School, Leytonstone
Visit to the Wellington Academy, Ludgershall
Interviews with trustees, headteachers, trainers and participants.
Ian Power, December 2014
4