In terms of CPD, interestingly the CPD requirements were not so much about how to develop course materials, because most teachers had good expertise in that already, and by giving the resources, in terms of the time or the money, they were actually quite willing to do that. We also worked very closely with our trade unions in the school to make sure that our identification of one hundred and thirty-three hours was used quite effectively. What we've actually found, in terms of the CPD, is that by having the small group of managers that the teachers have got an opportunity to identify other areas that they want support in. ICT in this school has been a very big one because we have got cutting-edge technology. We have interactive whiteboards, video conferencing; we have PCs in every classroom; we have wireless laptops on networks. Now, they're wanting support in relation to managing that. That's been a big investment for us. And, we have used our own teachers, in fact, largely to deliver that, because the majority of our curriculum in-service has been through our own teachers delivering it. Secondly, in terms of the CPD, we have allowed and supported our actual teachers to attend our curriculum support groups that operate within the Authority. The other schools would only allow their Principal Teachers to go to that. We've teachers going to that and they get to network; get to listen to what the issues are, and they can come back and speak to their PT of faculty and say, "Here are the issues in history", for example. And that's also been quite helpful for them. I think the third issue of CPD has really been, generally, in making the teachers themselves be aware of 'what are their professional needs?' Some of it has been in relation to right from managing children in the classroom- managing the environment - through to looking at different methodologies. We have also spent a lot of money allowing teachers, again, to attend in-service on 'Assessment is for Learning', for example - the formative assessment programme - and other things in which they are interested, 'Framework for Intervention' being another example. So, I suppose the bottom line is there's no rocket science here, there's nothing special or magical that we're putting into the teachers. What we're doing for teachers is saying to them, "You know you have the support within your team. You're able to share good practice. You're able to debate and discuss with peers of your subject, and with other subjects of course, in the one team, who have got slightly different perspectives." We're saying, "If you need support in terms of ICT in relation to learning and teaching, the support is there for you." And, we are delivering that in terms of time, in terms of money, in terms of support. We're also saying there is additional support within the Authority and nationally, which will support you as well. For example, we sent five down to SETT - five teachers down to SETT - from here. As I've said, it's a whole variety of ways of working with the teachers. And ultimately, it makes them feel more important and more valued, because they're not having to cut through layers of senior managers, middle managers before we actually get to them. They're getting through very quickly.
automatic