# data[].attributes.body
Need to bounce off views on hw to tier after we have filled in for individual Prog! Useful exercise to try out

# data[].attributes.body
It was a very useful exercise. Maybe instead of trying it out for all progs, just try tiering for a few, then spend more time on clarifications.

# data[].attributes.body
Abit challenging though but abit fun to do together

# data[].attributes.body
Dept will need more protected time to continue the work

# data[].attributes.body
liked the careful curation of the diff levels of discussion within HTs and then a larger group sharing. it helped us to learn from one another

# data[].attributes.headline
LCF underpins our master curriculum! (Must burn it drink it)

# data[].attributes.subject
LCF underpins our master curriculum! (Must burn it drink it)

# data[].attributes.headline
Challenge in finding the sweet spot between being descriptive and flexible in drafting EUs

# data[].attributes.subject
Challenge in finding the sweet spot between being descriptive and flexible in drafting EUs

# data[].attributes.body
Can see how we can get better clarity on the pitching/tiering across progs once we have a final product! Excited!

# data[].attributes.body
this process is rly good for streamlining content for participants

# data[].attributes.body
Refresher on focusing on lcf and breaking down loftier terms within lcf to better tier EUs for different programmes

# data[].attributes.body
having solid samples of statements of enduring understanding (regardless whether relevant or not) would have been better. the worked examples were a good attempt for reference but not q gold standard, sorry.

# data[].attributes.body
A bit painful to squeeze out coherent ideas with very limited time - time to think cut into the time for group discussion

# data[].attributes.body
Requires lots of time to think through and tier each competency to the different programmes and what outcomes we want to achieve.

# data[].attributes.body
It was a useful exercise to try our hand to tier across and also get a sense on how non home teams view your home teams learners

# data[].attributes.body
some of the EUs are too vague and needed clearer behavioural statements

# data[].attributes.headline
I’m not clear yet on who or how the final tiering will be decided. Who will approve?

# data[].attributes.subject
I’m not clear yet on who or how the final tiering will be decided. Who will approve?