Three cohorts (68 APs) attended Day 3 of the programme in November.
The overall ‘flavour’ of the day was one of reconnecting with cohort colleagues and exploring ‘Action and Empowerment’ in the AP role. In order to achieve this, APs worked within their allocated Action Learning Set groupings for most of the day, as they moved through three substantial workshops:
- Exploring change and evaluation of impact
- Practising a ‘Time to Think Council’
- Meeting as a (formal) Action Learning Set
Lou Mycroft then pulled things together with a high-impact exploration of empowerment and change including the metaphor of the Australian Bowerbird. You can watch her keynote in this video. The Powerpoint slides for the whole day can can be viewed below. We have also created a Padlet of useful resources used, or referred to, throughout the programme.
Interim Survey of progress and impact for APs on the CPD Programme
We invited all APs to complete a short interim survey as part of our quality assurance processes to help us gauge the impact of the programme. Please note that this survey will remain open for response until Dec 31st and we would really appreciate your views, if you have not already shared them.
Early stand-out results include:
84% or respondents consider that there has been a positive change in the culture of peer-peer support within their organisations (rated either 3 or 4, out of 5) as a result of this programme.
Programme attendance and the AP Toolkit are regarded as the most useful aspects of the programme.
Coaching models and related skills (and notably the Thinking Environment) were seen as particularly useful in driving positive change, alongside:
- learning about new improvement strategies and evidence-based-practice;
- networking, sharing and exposure to useful resources;
- gaining a better understanding of the meaning of outstanding teaching, learning and assessment (often focussed on learner engagement, challenge and differentiation).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, lack of time, resources, money and relevant infrastructure were seen as barriers to quality improvement and the AP role, closely associated with a deficit model of performance management.