NASET Unified Doc in Word - NCETMCPD+S… · Web viewProviders will: Criterion 1.1 make available...

NCETM CPD Standard Full Submission form For guidance in completing this form, please refer to the Full Submission Guidance Notes (2014 version).

Contact Name:

Email address

Telephone

Postal address

Are you applying as an individual or on behalf of an organisation? (Please indicate with a ) Individual Organisation

If you are applying on behalf of an organisation please complete the next 6 lines:

What is the name of the organisation?If successful, what name, if different from above, should be displayed on the certificate/award database/directory? What is your position within the organisation?Please give the name/contact details of a 2nd contact in your organisation. This should be the head or director of the organisation who ultimately is responsible for the quality of the provision:2nd Contact Name

Email addressTelephone

If you are applying as an individual please complete the next 2 lines:Name under which you trade:If successful, what name, if different from above, should be displayed on the certificate/award database/Directory?Now complete the next 7 pages and then email the form and appendices (zipped if possible) to [email protected]. Please note that submitting the completed form implies agreement, once you have gained the NCETM CPD Standard, to being part of an independent monitoring process.

of 9

CPD Standard Full Submission Form 2014

mailto:[email protected]

Introduction by Provider (background and context) (Suggested length: 400 words)

You have the opportunity in this introductory section to describe your, or your organisation’s, context and provision and, in particular, to include anything you see as important that is not included in the following sections. This might also include how you keep abreast of current research, practice and initiatives and your involvement with the wider mathematics education community.

Please include a weblink to your organisation/provision if applicable.

Background and context

of 9CPD Standard Full Submission Form (2014 version)

Evidence for meeting the Quality Mark criteria

Quality Mark 1: Promotion

Providers will:

Criterion 1.1 make available clear information to prospective participants describing the provision on offer, indicating the target audience;

Criterion 1.2 clearly communicate the purpose and aims of the provision and methods of delivery;

Criterion 1.3 set out clear objectives to demonstrate how the content and methodology of the provision will meet individual, school or national development needs or priorities;

Criterion 1.4 give details of location, dates, times, charges and any additional costs;

Criterion 1.5 if appropriate, give details of accreditation and routes of progression.

Provider’s supporting statement (suggested length: 400 words)


Quality Mark 2: Components of effective CPD in mathematics

Providers will:

Criterion 2.1 show how their provision takes into account all or some of the three strands of effective CPD (1) mathematical knowledge (2) mathematics specific pedagogy and (3) embedding into classroom practice, making clear which components are the focus and which are omitted, if any;

Criterion 2.2 make use of appropriate methodologies relating to each of the components above forming the focus of the provision;

Criterion 2.3 differentiate delivery, to take account of the different needs or circumstances of participants, in relation to these components.



Quality Mark 3: Ensuring high quality provision

Providers will ensure that:

Criterion 3.1 materials used are of a high standard and that the venue is well-prepared and comfortable;

Criterion 3.2 the forms of delivery, including the effective use of ICT, are appropriate to the subject matter or focus of the provision;

Criterion 3.3 the content is informed by recent, relevant research and/or inspection evidence where appropriate;

Criterion 3.4 they have in place procedures whereby the school/institution or individual, with the provider, can evaluate the extent to which the provision has been successful in meeting the needs of participants; this should enable participants to suggest ways in which the provision could be improved and therefore should go beyond a short, end-of-course ‘tick list’;

Criterion 3.5 they have in place well-defined, internal, self-evaluation and monitoring systems for the provider to ensure the quality of provision/course leaders or trainers.



Quality Mark 4: Extending impact beyond the provision

Providers will:

Criterion 4.1 encourage participants to reflect on a course/provision, collaborate and share outcomes;

Criterion 4.2 provide strategies or mechanisms to encourage participants to consider the impact on learning and learners’ development;

Criterion 4.3 suggest ways that participants can continue to network or collaborate beyond the initial provision, e.g. through an online forum, presenting at subject association meetings and conferences, or becoming actively involved with a subject association;

Criterion 4.4 in the case of accredited provision, enable participants to track their progress and record their achievement through the provision of specified learning outcomes.



Appendices of Evidence, cross-referenced to Criteria

Please list here all the evidence you are providing as part of your submission, labelling each one clearly (e.g. ‘Appendix 1, Appendix 2a, Appendix 2b, …) and cross-referencing to each Quality Mark criterion (e.g. QM 1.1, QM 1.2, QM 1.3 .....) to which it applies (as in the preceding illustrations). Please take care to ensure that each Appendix specifically illustrates compliance with the relevant criteria.

NB. It is usually sufficient to provide only one or two pieces of evidence for each criterion as a piece of evidence may be used to illustrate more than one. Your range of evidence should include some evidence from each of your different types of provision; however, it is not necessary to have something against every criterion from each type of provision.

Related Quality Mark Criteria (QM 1.1, 1.2,

1.3, etc.)

Document Title AppendixNumber

Types of support to which this evidence applies

1. In-school support / consultancy;2. Courses;3. CPD materials;

4. Collaborative teacher projects, research projects, etc.


Final Checklist

The checklist below will assist you in checking that you have included all the requisite information. Please consider each element very carefully before ticking it as ‘completed’.

Section Checklist

if completedGeneral Have you included sufficient appropriate pieces of

evidence? (We suggest that one or a maximum of two pieces of evidence for each criterion is sufficient).Have you ensured that you have some evidence from each type of your provision? (see list 1, 2, 3, 4 in the ‘Appendices of evidence’ table).

Background and Context

Have you specified all aspects of your CPD provision to which the CPD Standard will apply?Have you indicated who is involved in offering the CPD provision?Have you made sure that your submission only includes CPD provision for qualified teachers and not PGCE or other initial teacher education or support for other people, such as parents or governors?

All Quality Marks

Have you structured each section so that every Quality Mark criterion is addressed in turn? Is it clear which Quality Mark criteria you are writing about? Is there clear cross-referencing to the evidence provided? Is your evidence clearly labelled with letters or numbers?When referring to websites have you given links to specific web pages rather than to the entire website? Where appropriate, have you included screen shots of websites in your evidence?When referencing extensive documents have you specified the relevant pageswhich you are using as evidence?

All Quality Marks

Have you included only evidence relating to PD provision offered under your own name (i.e. not on behalf of another organisation/body)?

All Quality Marks

Are all resources and marketing materials included as supporting evidence branded to show you as the provider (i.e. not branded as being provided under another organisation/body)?

Appendices of evidence

Is all the evidence listed in the ‘Appendices of evidence’ table and is the labelling clear? (e.g. ‘Appendix 1, Appendix 2a, Appendix 2b, …)Have you clearly cross-referenced each piece of evidence with the Quality Mark Criteria to which it applies?


NASET Unified Doc in Word - NCETMCPD+S… · Web viewProviders will: Criterion 1.1 make available...

Documents

Transcript of NASET Unified Doc in Word - NCETMCPD+S… · Web viewProviders will: Criterion 1.1 make available...