Appendices

Appendix A: The Roots of the UK Timetable

Timetables for Tests, Not Deep Learning

The roots of the UK timetable go back decades. A former Head Teacher and current Senior Education Partner with the Innovation Unit, David Jackson, described to me how the current timetables came to be, “The timetable is the way it is because that's the way it has always been. It is subject based and driven by an examination expectation that says students will sit between 8 and 12 subjects – hence 8-12 teachers for examination subjects + PE + Tutor + other bits and pieces. Madness.” When I asked him why schools do it this way he responded, “We have been using the phrase that you can 'create your timetable by default or by design'. Most do it by default, the only way they know.”

Since the introduction of the O Level in the 1950’s, schools in England have been focused on preparing students to do well on nationwide, standards driven examinations. The O Levels were subject based qualifications primarily given to students in Grammar Schools (The Story of the GCSE, 2007). Grammar Schools in England were for the top 20% of students based on ability measured by a test students took when they were 11 years old. One Head teacher in England told me that, “If you did not qualify for a Grammar School you had a very slim chance of going to University.” The focus on examination preparation only intensified with the introductions of the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations and the National Curriculum in 1988 (Symonds and Hagell, 2011). In the 25 years since the introduction of the GCSE’s, teachers and students have been pressured to produce high scores in order to qualify for the A-Level courses which determine a student’s placement at University. Secondary schools (ages 11-19) in the UK work tirelessly to prepare for a battery of GCSE examinations. The results of these tests are closely monitored by parents, students, teachers and the media. League tables, first published in 1997, give school average scores and are regularly published in newspapers and on the internet (Symonds & Hagell, 2011).

In many schools, administrators require that teachers give mock examinations every few months to track the progress of each student to ensure that they will earn the highest marks on the GCSE examinations. Due to these rigid examination requirements, schools in the UK require students to take a wide range of classes in order to prepare for all of the 50 different GCSE examinations available (Ofqual, n.d.). The very best universities require students to do well in eight different GCSE examinations. Students feel the pressure to do well in these exams, because if they do not do well, they can not qualify for the A Level courses necessary for admission to University. Schools feel the pressure to prepare students for these exams, because of OFSTED, published league tables, parental pressure, and pressure from the students. Preparation for these examinations begins when students enter Secondary School at age 11. Life in a UK school generally revolves around examinations.

Despite its implications for student learning and teacher collaboration, very little has been researched when it comes to timetabling in the UK. Timetables have not changed much in the past 30 years (Symonds & Hagell, 2011). In 1979, the most common timetable was an 8 period day with 35 minutes per class period. Since the 1960’s and the introduction of Comprehensive Schools, higher percentages of students have been taught in mixed ability and socio economic settings (Symonds & Hagell, 2011). However many of these newly formed Comprehensive Schools simply copied the curriculums of grammar schools. The students in the UK follow a similar school curriculum to early twentieth century grammar schools (Moon, 1994).

The school year must comprise of 380 half days, which most commonly is delivered on 190 full days. The design of the school year leaves students away from school in the summer which has not been changed since Victorian times when students were needed in the summer to help with the harvest (Sharp, 2000).

Appendix B: Timetabling and Student Engagement

The need for higher levels of student engagement

Researchers have found that student engagement is a strong predictor of student achievement and behavior in school regardless of socioeconomic factors (Klem & Connell, 2004). Students who have high engagement were “44% more likely to do well and 23% less likely to do poorly on performance and attendance indices” (Klem & Connell, 2004). Intellectual engagement falls dramatically as students age. In a 2011 study of over 67,000 students, the Canadian Education Association reported that intellectual engagement fell from 82% in Grade 5 to 45% in Grade 12.

Table 3. Intellectual engagement by grade level. (CEA, 2011)

Once a student loses interest in school, it is very difficult to get them to regain interest. If students are not intellectually engaged they have a much lower chance of doing well in school. Student engagement is not the only factor in student learning, but is is an important one. Social, institutional and intellectual engagement all contribute to important developmental outcomes for adolescent learners (Dunleavy & Milton, 2010). So why does intellectual engagement fall so dramatically as students progress from Primary School to Secondary School? Could the timetable be part of the problem?

How a change in timetable can enhance student engagement

In Table 3 we saw how student engagement drops as students get older. One of the biggest factors in the drop of student engagement is the lack of deep relationships between students and teachers in upper grades. The one-on-one relationship between student and teacher is the critical element that can lead to increased student motivation and higher levels of engagement in academics and school life (Jones, 2008).

In England, students see fifteen or more teachers each week. Students at High Tech High Schools in San Diego California see a maximum of five teachers each week. English, Geography and History are taught by one teacher and Math and Science are taught by another teacher to form a teaching team. Each teaching team is responsible for the same 50-55 students for a combined four hours per day, every day of the school year. Students see their teaching team teachers for ⅔ of their weekly time. The table below shows a sample High Tech High timetable for students aged 11-14.

Table 4. A sample High Tech High timetable.

Marc Shulman, a teacher from High Tech Middle states, “One of the major focuses of teachers during the first week of school is to build a team atmosphere where students feel comfortable and connected with one another and with the teacher.” Professor Sara Rimm Kaufman from The Curry School of Education at The University of Virginia explains, “If a student feels a personal connection to a teacher, experiences frequent communication with a teacher, and receives more guidance and praise than criticism from the teacher, then the student is likely to become more trustful of that teacher, show more engagement in the academic content presented, display better classroom behavior, and achieve at higher levels academically” (Rimm-Kaufman, 2013). Furthermore, two separate studies came to the same conclusion that when teachers establish close relationships with their students, their students were less likely to skip school, were more self-directed, and more engaged in their learning (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Klem & Connell, 2004).

Appendix C: OFSTED

OFSTED stands for the Office of Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. It is England’s governing body which inspects schools and delivers public reports about each school in the country. OFSTED looks at a school’s test results, documentation, and observes a wide range of teacher lessons. One requirement from OFSTED is that each student demonstrate learning in 20 minute increments. Alex Quigly from The Guardian bemoans, “If every lesson has to mechanically return to the lesson plan, or the requirement for some monkey-dance exhibiting progress every 20 minutes, then we will never get authentic, deep learning” (Quigly, 2013). Another teacher in Peterborough asked me “How can I do a 30 hour project when I see my students for two hours per week?” OFSTED rates schools on a scale:

-Grade 1 - Outstanding

-Grade 2 - Good

-Grade 3 - Requires Improvement

-Grade 4 - Inadequate

OFSTED inspections are generally feared by teachers and administrators all over England. Administrators and teachers have been fired for low OFSTED ratings.