The ATL checklist: a year 4 student who is falling through the gaps
At an MYP school, approaches to learning are reported each term using a five-skill checklist (communication, research, thinking, social, self-management) marked "emerging / developing / secure". Teachers complete it in the last week of term from memory. In year 4, Daniel has diagnoses of ADHD and a specific literacy difficulty. His report shows "developing" in every ATL category, and three teachers have written that he "lacks self-management". His mother has asked what the school is actually doing, since the same comments appeared in year 3. Daniel's subject levels are 4–5; his personal project supervisor notes he is highly persistent on his own chosen topic. The learning support coordinator has an individual plan that is not shared with subject teachers. The school's inclusion policy states that all students access the MYP, and the year 4 team meets for 40 minutes every second week with no standing agenda.
1. Critique the school's use of ATL in this case. What is conceptually wrong with the checklist approach, and what are the consequences for Daniel?
Read the worked answer
Conceptual problems.
- ATL skills are processes, not traits. "Developing in self-management" describes a judgement about a person; an ATL report should describe what a student can do and under what conditions. Skills are context-dependent: Daniel is persistent on his personal project, which is evidence of self-management that the checklist cannot capture.
- Evidence is retrospective and unrecorded. Completing the form from memory in the last week of term guarantees recency bias and teacher impression rather than observed performance.
- The five categories are too coarse to act on. "Thinking" spans critical, creative and transfer skills; a single word gives Daniel nothing to do next and gives his mother nothing to discuss.
- No connection to teaching. ATL skills that are not explicitly taught, modelled and given feedback on do not develop. The checklist records a state but never changes it.
Consequences for Daniel. The same comments three years running are a signal that nothing has been tried. "Lacks self-management" locates the problem in the child and obscures the environment - unshared support plans, unstructured group work, lengthy written tasks. Reporting becomes a record of failure rather than a plan, and the mother's question is entirely reasonable.
2. Redesign the ATL reporting and support cycle for year 4 so that it is evidence-based, teachable and useful to Daniel and his family.
Read the worked answer
Choose fewer skills and define them observably. Select two focus skills per term, expressed as student-facing descriptors (for example, "I can break a long task into steps and set my own deadlines"). Align these with the individual plan and with the subject group's unit planners.
Teach them explicitly. Each unit names one ATL skill, shows how it will be modelled, and includes a feedback point. Students self-assess against the same descriptor before teacher feedback, so the report reflects a shared judgement rather than teacher memory.
Collect evidence as you go. A simple record per student per term - one observation, one piece of student work, one self-assessment - is enough, and it takes less time than reconstructing judgements in the final week.
Report in a way that leads to action. Replace "developing" with a statement plus a next step: "Daniel plans short tasks well; he needs support to sequence a task that runs beyond two lessons. Next term we will use a visual planner in English and I&S."
For Daniel specifically. Share the individual plan with all subject teachers, agree two or three consistent strategies (task chunking, a written checklist, a designated check-in), and schedule a review with his mother at mid-term rather than at reporting. Recognise the persistence his supervisor observed and make it visible in the report - it is evidence, and it changes the story the family is being told.
3. What changes to the year 4 team's collaboration would make this sustainable, given only 40 minutes every second week?
Read the worked answer
Forty minutes a fortnight is enough for a disciplined conversation; it is not enough for an unstructured one.
Give the meeting a standing structure. Rotate three items: (1) one student discussed in depth using the individual plan and current work (fifteen minutes); (2) one ATL focus skill - what it looked like in lessons this fortnight, what teachers will do next (fifteen minutes); (3) actions and who owns them (ten minutes). Rotating the student focus means Daniel is discussed on a schedule rather than in a crisis.
Share the record. A single shared document holds the student focus notes, the agreed strategies and the ATL evidence. The learning support coordinator attends once a month rather than weekly, which uses scarce expertise where it changes decisions.
Link to the planners. Heads of department check that each unit names an ATL skill, and the team reviews one planner per fortnight as the evidence base for the ATL discussion. This replaces rather than adds to the meeting.
Make the family a partner. Agree with Daniel's mother what the school will do, what she will see at home, and when the review happens. Two-way communication converts reporting from an annual complaint into a working relationship.
Build in review. At the end of each term, ask two questions: did the reports contain evidence we could point to, and did any student's support actually change? If not, the structure needs adjusting, not more meetings.