2. Facilitating staff discussion and sharing is likely to be far more effective to develop practice within your school. /2
Improving Remote Education - A Thread.
Over the last couple of weeks, the discussion has been about what primary schools are offering to their communities and how we can improve on it.
I'm relistening to the sessions, so points may not be in order as I add them... 1/
2. Facilitating staff discussion and sharing is likely to be far more effective to develop practice within your school. /2
4. Entertainment and engagement are different things.
6. It is scary being beamed into someone's home, but having your home on show is also stressful. (perhaps something for Ofsted to consider, we are guests in other people's homes)
10. Give staff the option to invite SLT to sessions, not to observe but to participate.
12. How to video guides to support parents are useful too.
14. Encourage parents to feedback to you through appropriate channels. (You will have to manage expectations, but you need their view).
16. Try and find out how many actually have access to proper devices and not just phones.
18. Don't reinvent the wheel - if Oak do your lesson with full resources - don't record a new one just introduce it.
21. Have an overview of what you are teaching, and record who is accessing it and completing work. This will help in the future. It doesn't have to be complicated.
More from Education
Normally I enjoy the high standards of journalism in @guardian . Not today as disappointed with misleading headline that suggest infections are spreading fastest in children. It'll worry parents/teachers & I doubt most readers will unpick the
The latest REACT1 report shows prevalence of infection in ALL age groups has fallen, including children aged 5-12 from 1.59% in Round 8 to 0.86% in Round 9a. The authors of REACT1 report also (wisely) didn't try to interpret the prevalence figures.
If this were a research trial you wouldn't place much weight on the age differences in % prevalence because of the wide confidence intervals, i.e. differences weren't statistically significant.
3/
I've previously tweeted on the challenges (& dangers) of interpreting surveillance data. One would need lots more contextual info to make sense of it & arrive at sound
Undoubtedly some will extrapolate from the prevalence of infection figures in children to other settings i.e. schools based on the headline. I'd advise caution as there is a real risk of over-interpretation through extrapolation of limited data. Association is not causation.
5/
The latest REACT1 report shows prevalence of infection in ALL age groups has fallen, including children aged 5-12 from 1.59% in Round 8 to 0.86% in Round 9a. The authors of REACT1 report also (wisely) didn't try to interpret the prevalence figures.
If this were a research trial you wouldn't place much weight on the age differences in % prevalence because of the wide confidence intervals, i.e. differences weren't statistically significant.
3/
I've previously tweeted on the challenges (& dangers) of interpreting surveillance data. One would need lots more contextual info to make sense of it & arrive at sound
Misinterpretation of surveillance data is a serious issue. Surveillance data needs to come with a warning label - Open to biases - interpret with caution! Some may not realize that surveillance often does not measure all infection, it's a proxy for actual disease incidence.
— Andrew Lee (@andrewleedr) February 14, 2021
1/
Undoubtedly some will extrapolate from the prevalence of infection figures in children to other settings i.e. schools based on the headline. I'd advise caution as there is a real risk of over-interpretation through extrapolation of limited data. Association is not causation.
5/
