We are constantly being manoeuvred and manipulated in some way, by politicians, spin doctors and the press, to believe one thing one minute and the polar opposite a little later. Information is “drip fed” into the public arena that, with a small nuance of delivery, changes the substance to suit the style. The current "Brexit" debate is an excellent example of this, with data being skewed to suit the speaker, or ignored altogether; they would say that, wouldn't they...

Education is not immune from this either. From 2010, a certain proportion of the so-called “education establishment” was vilified by the Secretary of State, as “the Blob”, seeking to make them into the “Enemies of Promise”. It was a deliberate act to seek to neuter any opposition, as any alternative views from those then being proclaimed could be more easily countered. I think I fell into this group, as a former headteacher, now consultant and ITE tutor, almost a "full house".

It continues today, with any negativity being met with a positive Department of Education response. The “We’re all doing very well” line can ring very hollow with headteachers and teachers on the ground seeking to make sense of what can appear to be daily and weekly alterations to expectations. No sooner has one initiative been announced, but another replaces it before the first has been partially explored and embedded.

A weekend blog by Brian Walton, aka Twitter @theoldprimaryhead, had many people almost in tears, as he outlined his week with redundancies to create, as a result of changes to funding formulae and state contributions.

Another blogger, Michael Tidd, aka @MichaelT1979 has compared the Government rhetoric with the advice that was given by their “expert group” working on the revision to the National Curriculum. To say that much was ignored is an understatement. “Expertise”, except for that of a select few, who agree with the direction of progress, does not seem to be a desirable quality at the moment, at last as far as the Government is concerned. Nor is reportage of developing experience, as any negative headlines are met with “We’ve given the money to… for…”

We are all flattered to be asked for our views. Dr Stockmann, in the play, was suitably flattered to be asked, by the local paper, to allow them to print his report of bacteria in the local spa baths water and saw himself as a local hero. The mayor, his brother, would have been significantly hurt by this, so used pressure on the press to change the story, I doing so turning the population into a mob, baying for the doctor’s blood. It can be an easy thing to achieve with a well planted story, especially if there are links to the media.

On the blog home page, I have put a statement which outlines my thinking. I know that this is not entirely in accordance with the current Government thinking. In fact, given the current “debate” about “traditional or progressive” pedagogy, one side will see me as the opposite. However, that does not make me “An enemy of the people” or “an enemy of promise”. I see promise in creating the best possible spaces and opportunities for children to learn, as much as well as they are able.

To save you flicking to the home page, here’s my statement.

Since my early training I have been convinced 
that the greatest service any teacher can do for children
in the earliest stages of education
is to instil a love of learning, to enjoy enquiring and to generate questions
which they can then seek to answer,
by a variety of means, and share with others.

To learn to think, to talk and to question is the birthright of every child. 

This simplification of a much broader approach
has been my guiding principle
both as a classroom teacher and as a head teacher,
seeking to harness children’s interests to become dynamic learners
in and out of school, both in school and all other settings.

The development of learning
through making explicit appropriate cross-curricular links,
starting from relevant first-hand experiences,
gives children both thematic overviews and the ability to explore,
discover and place relevant individual items of information within a wider context.
This is often now described as a metacognitive approach, learning about learning, 
but I would argue that it is, and always has been, good education practice.

Children need to have a grasp of where their current learning fits
into the wholeness of their knowledge,
to  know where and how to store this for future use,
and to have skills of rapid recall,
so that the information or skill can be applied in other contexts. 

Children should learn to become solution finders.
​
Children need to learn to think for themselves, to become independent at an appropriate level for their age; to blow their noses, tie their laces, go to the toilet, and to be able to use and apply what they have learned to enable them to tackle new challenges. It is simple, and straightforward and, I am happy to agree, that there are many ways in which this can be achieved, sometimes simply telling, sometimes supported exploration, sometimes independent; that’s life and learning.

Education is presented in a linear form. Learning happens all the time, in different places. It can be, at times, a very messy process, with some making faster progress and achieving more at a particular stage than others.

Expressing the view that people, including children, are different and have individual abilities and needs, or just holding a different view from you, does not make me into an “Enemy of the People”. Holding more "progressive" views does not make me into an enemy either.

​It is becoming clearer, by the day, to me, that, to the current government, and despite the rhetoric of improvement, that “Every child doesn’t really matter”.

What matters seems to be to offload schools into Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs), rather than Local Authorities (LAs), but without the whole system functioning effectively to enable the MATs to function better than the LAs.  
The system is in danger of failing the children, now and for the foreseeable future, with changes in academisation not being complete until 2022, if then.

I would prefer the Government to be using the available expertise to better coordinate and upgrade the system, to advantage all children, rather than continue to seek to break it apart. Children, whatever their abilities and achievements, within every school, should be valued for themselves and be offered and supported to achieve. No system is perfect, but it can always be more efficient and effective.

When I was in Grammar School, if the school field was too wet for the planned games of rugby, there was always the fall back of cross country. As a schoolboy rugby player, I was good enough to get County trials, with several positional options, with speed and strength and, at that time, equality of stature. I could keep going for the 80 minutes, but I wasn’t built for cross country, which was dominated by the more lithe group. While I kept plodding, they went off at speed and were usually showered and dry by the time that my group got back. The able rugby players were not necessarily the able cross country runners. I got my own back with general athletics and went to local area sports in 100m, relay and javelin, as well as County cricket. It showed me, at an early age, that everyone has slightly different aptitudes, interests and motivation for different activities. If I had been judged on my cross country ability, I’d have been a failure, being in the lower quarter of achievement, but, by being encouraged by PE teachers to see it as stamina building for the other sports, it still held some purpose.

Recently, I put together a series of posts on Inclusion, deriving from my, almost ten years, experience of working in that area. The links to these blogs are at the foot of this post.

Inclusion has been much in debate recently, but, in many ways, I have become a little concerned by the ever narrower remit being described. Where inclusion was initially defined as a step up from integrating SEND children into mainstream towards the “Every Child Matters” agenda, incorporating the needs of all children, from able to the SEND, it can appear to be beginning to be claimed again as the flag of the SEND lobby, in order to survive.

This narrowing of the definition, in itself, I fear, enables mainstream teachers and schools to emphasise the, to me, less desirable aspects of the current curriculum and assessment approach.

The new National Curriculum is year based, with year 2 and year 6 testing enabling the use of terms such as “at, or not at national standard”, or similar statements. I have seen school reports from other years that suggest that a child may not be on track to achieve at the “appropriate” standard. I wonder how this is then discussed at home? Nuanced and encouraging or seeing the child and themselves as failures?

​Negativity built in from year 1?

In developing this model, I was aware that I wanted to create something that could apply across all teaching and learning needs.

Every topic area had it’s own “Topic Spec”, which detailed the specific knowledge areas that needed to be learned during the experience. These were developed with County Inspectors and Advisors, spending time with subject managers to refine and hone the expectations across the whole Primary school. It provided a coherent learning journey. Teachers who could see an alternative way to combine Topic Specs, to make greater gains were enabled to do so, as long as the knowledge gains were secure.

Arrange as an annual plan, the teachers could then focus on the current topic, with an eye on the next one. See Planning

Where possible, first-hand experience underpinned learning, with early recording, as drawings and simple writing, as well as photographs supporting narrative retelling and discussion. High level communication was encouraged, starting with description, then through scaffolded questioning to consider similarities and differences to other experiences. Creating a clear visual imagery, we felt, was important to support future, more abstract thinking. The “Picture It” visualisation stage supported the majority of children through the infant stage, although many were also within the “Test It” stage.

Challenge in tasks was a hallmark of topic activity, and had been throughout my earlier career. Activities that seemed like “busy work”, if seen, were always challenged for a clear rationale.

Learning to think clearly, for yourself, is an important aspect of learning in general, which is why modelling thinking, aloud, in front of the children, enables them to, at least, gain an insight into how individuals think. One reason that I think sets often fail children is the narrowed opportunity to engage with higher achieving models of thinking. Sharing, peer to peer teaching can sometimes be as powerful as through a teacher.

Before the terms were “invented”, I think, naturalistically, as a school, we were effectively doing “Growth Mindset” approaches and looking for “Marginal Gains”. These two elements, to me fall naturally within the teacher mindset, in that they also embed an investigative approach to thinking that charges the teacher with detailed questioning to really seek to understand the learner thought processes and to address their needs.

Was learning organised across time to enable knowledge and skills to be used in future topics?
Were topics based on knowledge rather than just skills?
Were challenges created to check learner independent competence and retention of knowledge?
Did teachers share knowledge/facts with children?
Did children follow up in-class learning with home activities?
Did children enjoy the process of learning?
Did children regularly succeed at 85% of cohorts at age expected levels?

The answer to every question is yes.

Children were taught, then challenged to use and apply their knowledge. Outcomes were good and they enjoyed the process of learning.

That’s why I am a “progmatist”. I believe that children can learn in the right circumstances. It’s the adult job to create the right circumstances.

See the work of Reuven Feuerstein (1921-2014), Israeli clinical psychologist, whose ideas and theories developed from working with refugee children after World War 2.
 

Self-improvement was a theme that went through my mind during the trip, not least because just before the Easter holidays, I was invited to the National Education Trust annual Lecture from Dame Sally Coates, at which the NET also launched their book, edited by Roy Blatchford and Rebecca Clark, Self-Improving Schools; the journey to excellence. I took this to reread, after doing so before the trip. It was an interesting publication, in that it could be read as a prospectus for mass academisation, as has become the Government approach. In each of the first two sections there were pieces that offered a slightly different alternative view, but the stronger voices seemed to take the view that we might as well get used to the idea, as it’s time had come.

Terms such as “school led”, self-improving”, “gale and hurricane”, “leadership”, “futures”, seemed at times to rely on political rhetoric and exhortation.

There is a big question of whether the system, at every level, is really ready for the impending changes? If every school is to become an academy by 2022, as per the Government agenda, then the anticipated changes need to be planned in such a way that continuity and progression are maintained. However, I would argue that the systems around the central school system are not yet well thought through.

The five years from 2010 to 2015 saw an earthquake of significant force in education, leaving the debris (still) to be cleaned up, and in 2016, I’d say that there is still plenty to be done to rectify, or even to embed fully, the earlier changes. Just note the number of Government “clarifications” and late exemplification for the 2016 SATs.
​
To mention a few; Curriculum and (a national scheme of) Assessment, Examinations 4-18, Teacher training (multiple routes), school places, academisation following Ofsted judgement, free schools, school finance… 
 
All the above are in the hands of the Government, whose response, every time there is criticism, is to deliver the “We’re doing very well, thank you” homily, even if the evidence might suggest an alternative interpretation. That so much has not yet bedded in does not prepare the ground for the mass academisation that is envisaged, over the next six years. Why do it anyway?

An analysis of the main problem would suggest that there is a proportion of schools which, despite help given and guidance from Ofsted and outside agencies, seem less than able to make progress to deliver a good or better outcome for children.

At the same time, there are schools in areas of deprivation that succeed at a high level. The project to link high achievers with low achievers through Multi-academy Trusts (MATs) is the preferred solution, but for every school in the country. To do so will not necessarily address the issue of the underperforming school, as the energies being directed to academisation on that scale will divert time, effort and finances to the bigger project. It is not clear to me that this will go any way to addressing more pressing issues. Just parachuting in some staff will not provide the basis for long term change and stability.

Teacher recruitment and retention, CPD, preparation for promotion and leadership roles need to be addressed, if schools are to have a full complement of teachers of sufficient knowledge, skill and energy to sustain and further develop the system, let alone work through change. Changing a system requires time and energy, to consider and plan for futures while maintaining a continuous high quality product. Change in education is a cerebral as well as a practical project. It might need some quality time out, not just for management level people, or the MAT management or Trustees, who can only achieve through the focused efforts of others.

ITE changes can appear to be less than well-coordinated. Bulk, high-quality (Ofsted checked) teacher training has long been the remit of university departments. This has been supplemented through other routes, such as School Direct, Teach First, Accreditation Only and Troops to Teachers. While these are growing in number, they have not yet matched the need of the whole system, which potentially embeds a potential weakness over time. A local example would be a School Direct provider, whose schools requested 18 trainees, but were only allowed to recruit 10 to the 16-17 cohort. Not a good balance of supply and demand.

University departments train students for multiple placements, necessarily working at a more general level. Where trainees are being trained by and for a specific school, it is possible that their ability to move to another, with potentially very different approaches might become more challenging.

Schools need teachers. Some areas fail to recruit simply because of house prices or rental costs. Having stayed in the same area for 40 years, I know that my first house, bought at 4 times a starting teacher salary and a small deposit, would now require 8 times a starter salary and a large deposit. That, combined with student loan debts, will have an impact.

·         Housing is an issue to be resolved, if stability in staffing is to be developed.
·         Staffing stability is needed for development, embedding, evaluation, refining and security. Across the Primary curriculum, the generalist nature of the broad curriculum requires general, high quality training to raise everyone to a good standard. Change, especially large scale change, puts development in jeopardy, as all the good work can be undone very rapidly.
·         Curriculum change and assessment, as wrought under the current system, requires significant stability of staffing, if high quality teacher judgement, through moderation, is to be established. Change takes away the continuity of discussion and decision making.
·         Local needs need to be addressed, in Initial Teacher Training and CPD, as well as recruitment, to maintain supply over time. There are areas that are poorly served by training providers. However, aspects of CPD can be in the hands of local groups of schools, if there is a willingness to cooperate.
·         Relationships with LA broader provision, such as SEN, Child Protection, Health and Safety, Library services, need to be considered. A MAT is, after all, a new “business”.

Economies of scale might need to be considered, earlier, rather than later. Stuff happens in a school; the roof blows off, a teacher goes on long term sickness, an accident or an issue relating to a child. All three of these examples can result in significant costs falling onto “someone”. Under the LA system, if the roof blows off, there is a building organisation that ensures a reasonably rapid addressing of the issue. The sick teacher cost is picked up by the LA after 20 days absence and the child issue, which might require legal advice, currently is at a relatively low unit cost, as an insurance.

Having worked and lived in Hampshire for my whole career, I am concerned that a good authority (there will be areas of weakness), is threatened with dismemberment under the Government proposals. Unless it can become a Multi-Academy Trust in it’s own right, it could become 20+ MATs, with 20 schools each. These MATs will each have a CEO and back office, potentially equal to the existing LA, so central costs will rise. There is no requirement to maintain current Governance arrangements, nor to provide training should Governors be retained. Hampshire still has a dedicated Governor Services system. MATs would have to buy into any centralised services. Where some schools are already academies and buy back services, these are at a higher cost than to LA schools, as it is a business arrangement. Does anyone seriously believe that non-teaching costs will be (significantly) lower?

I can’t yet see how this move to mass-academisation is in the best interests of the system, as a whole.
It suggests a lack of ideas or will to address the real issues affecting schools. It will be at best a distraction from the real purpose of school, and at worst will decimate the system of public education for a long time.

If you are in a MAT, started or lead a MAT, you might have a different view and I am happy to accept that I have a LA view, as a long career teacher and Governor.

And I like working with trees and looking at the view from my (French) front garden!  

I'd rather the over-riding consideration was sustainability, across the whole system. Self-improvement can become selfish, rather than altruistic.

​The journey is never over… but there is a continuous need for qualified teacher status. Anyone can “teach” their favourite topics, but not everyone can be a teacher over the long term. Teaching is a profession; it needs status.

I was contemplating the process of appointing staff recently when discussing job applications with a finalist trainee, preparing her thinking towards the written application, then the possibility of an interview. Over the course of my headship, I was able to appoint a number of staff at all levels. As the school reputation grew, the number and quality of applicants grew, to the point where, at times, we had sixty to seventy applications for one post. This was an embarrassment of riches and I did feel sorry for those, other than the five interviewed, for the time and effort spent in the application.

The school created a job description and a person specification that was sent to all candidates, so that they knew what the job entailed and the sort of personal qualities that were sought within the role being advertised.

In essence, the whole could be distilled into a simple mantra; analyse, plan, do, review, record.

This was the central feature of the school teaching and learning policy. We wanted thoughtful, reflective, self-developing, responsible colleagues, who were ordered and organised in their approach, in organising their classroom and their teaching plans, could get their ideas across with ease, relative to the audience, unpick any anomalies that might arise and record the journey so that there were reference points against which to make future judgements.

I don’t think things are very different today, as, being a school Governor, I am still involved in staffing decisions and he same qualities are sought.

It is intriguing that, within the White Paper on Education, there is a statement that Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) will be made more “rigorous”; particularly that it should be “signed off” by an “experienced headteacher”. This ignores the current state of play, where, whatever route is followed to achieve QTS, a significant time is spent in schools where an experienced mentor supports and then writes a summative report, often with the Head as a supervisor.

The essential need for the school, in my opinion, is to determine the employability of the student. Could they write a positive reference for the trainee? That would require a very modest alteration to current practice.

At the same time, it would be to the advantage of the system if every school was required to demonstrate their commitment to teacher training, through taking and mentoring trainees. Currently, it is in the gift of schools to receive or not, which means a great deal of time is spent with university tutors visiting, phoning, emailing or writing to schools to cajole them into having a trainee. It would need one line in an Ofsted visit report.

Having been in several roles within university (undergrad, post-grad, accreditation only) and School Direct (SCITT) routes into teaching, including interviewing candidates, I have a broad experience of the current state of play.

There is a need for a steady supply of entrants into the teaching profession. It has to be recognised that, whereas for my generation where teaching was seen as a route to personal betterment, it may well be the case that teacher status has been eroded by successive ministers over the past thirty years. With the rise in retirement ages, too, the potential for a 40+ year career may seem, to some, daunting from the outset.

To encourage the best entrants to join and retain a life-long interest, in order that they might take on senior roles, perhaps it is worth looking at teaching in the round. It does seem to take a certain character to think of becoming a teacher. Teaching is a well-rounded profession, requiring well rounded entrants.

Where a few minor tweaks might make a difference.

Teachers have to be able to operate at several levels within any lesson, dictated by the variety of needs exhibited by the class. This variety can mean that parallel classes in the same school can display significantly different approaches to the same teacher and the same learning. It is important that the prospective teacher is capable of taking on board a significant volume of information regarding the class(es) that they teach, with many individual needs to be addressed.

There is a thought process that needs to be undertaken;
·         analysis of the class needs, along with the curriculum to be offered;
·         planning for learning over the timescale of the theme;
·         delivery approaches that enable knowledge to be shared economically and efficiently, along with challenging activities within which the knowledge will be used and applied in context;
·         reflective activity within and between lessons to determine learning security and adjustments to expectation;
·         essential note-making as aides memoire to support future thinking.
​
The range of needs can be expressed within a holistic diagram that draws from the current teaching standards.

The diagram below, derived from the teaching standards, reiterates the personal qualities that are likely to lead to success. These, I would suggest, are likely to be universal, even within any changed QTS system.

Those seeking teacher status need to demonstrate a thoroughly professional manner, with all other colleagues. They need to demonstrate that they are ordered and organised, with good subject knowledge and underlying expectations of how a good classroom will be run, including  good understanding of behaviour management. They need to show that they can put their knowledge together into packages that will enable children to be exposed to and retain essential knowledge that allows them to begin to understand the world in which they live.
​
The subject knowledge required by an EYFS child may appear to be of a different magnitude to an A level student, but every trainee needs to unpick the processes that underpin good learning in their subject(s), so that they are very aware of the journeys being undertaken, in order to fine tune to the needs of the children in each class.
​

​One of the significant qualities sought at interview, is the ability to think on your feet, engage with discussion and to demonstrate an active mind that might indicate a life-long learner.

This may, or may not, be a consequence of a particular degree grade requirement (currently seeking 2:1 candidates). Over my career, I have often found that trainees with a lower first degree, or slightly lower A level outcomes are often better at thinking about the learning needs of the children in their classes, rather than a focus just on the subject at hand.

Teachers need to know about how children learn; in Primary, across a very wide range of subjects, but up to the point decided by the curriculum for their age group. This used to be stated as level 5/6, which was described as equivalent to a C/D grade at GCSE.
 
There is a need to explore what progress looks like, in each subject, and how to quality assure outcomes, so that the act of engaging with the outcome informs the next steps from the teacher.

This, to me, is probably the most significant upgrade in teacher training; the use of exemplar materials to fully inform teacher expectations at every stage.
​
While a trainee should have experience of one KS1 and one KS2 classroom, they will not have experience across other years. In some areas, such as SEN, to understand outcomes from previous and successive years is essential to making valid judgements about the relative achievements of a child or a cohort. That can also provide approaches to enable a teacher to offer appropriate challenge to children, with the express desire to investigate aspects of their thinking, whether as higher or lower achievers.

The current changes in education mean that taking people into a training course will encounter a few difficulties.

There are significant variables between schools now that mean that successive school experiences can require the trainee to adjust their planning approach significantly, classroom approaches including behaviour management and assessment, along with the need to get to know very rapidly a new group of children. This can be significant within School Direct second experiences, which might be a short half term.

Initial Teacher Education is always likely to have issues attached. It is, after all, an initial stage in becoming a teacher; permission to go, unsupported, into a classroom and to take responsibility for a class development over the course of a school year.

There are many very good ways of becoming a teacher. University based courses have the benefit of regular lectures on site with access to the university library between lectures. This can be to the disadvantage of School Direct or Accreditation Only students, especially of we want an evidence informed profession.

The context, the professionalism of the receiving school and the direct mentoring in school is a key element in a successful outcome. I would want all schools to be geared up to receive students, with outline training for all as professional colleagues, and detailed training for the class-based mentor to be able to coach effectively during the practice. The opportunity for professional dialogue to be developed has to be planned. As the school receives funding for trainee oversight, this needs to be planned to happen and be evidenced as having done so.

While some trainees have assignments to complete during their school experience, others don’t. The inclusion of set assignments can be a distraction for some, but, if tuned to the practice, can enhance the experience. With lesson study being high profile as a CPD approach, I’d want the opportunity of school experience to become a very reflective period, with some kind of lesson study journal developed throughout, as a combination of mentor observations and trainee reflections. This could be summarised at a significant point in the experience to generate personal development targets.

Becoming a teacher is not an easy path, nor should it be; it is not a job for the faint hearted.

If trainees, at the end of their training are
·         self-developing, self-reliant professionals, team leaders and team players,
·         capable of organising themselves and the classes where they have teaching responsibility effectively,
·         planned, over different timescales, and resourced to need,
·         with a delivery style that engages the children to listen attentively, supported by appropriately challenging tasks,
·         where they involve themselves with ongoing learning in lessons, picking up the, often subtle, signs that a child might be finding the learning easy or a little harder than expected,
·         discussing concerns, or personal needs with appropriate colleagues
·         and good record keepers,

We might be able to say that, given the chance to keep developing and thinking in this way, they could be a good or very good teacher.

Around these developing professionals needs to be a well-equipped, well-resourced organisation of professional mentors, capable of having the essential conversations that enable the trainee to function at the highest possible level.

If I had to pick out one key area which is in need of significant national debate it is teaching standard 2, progress and outcomes. I have long held that portfolios of exemplar material informs the developing teacher about what might be reasonable expectations of children of different ages. This understanding has an impact on teacher judgement, which is an essential underpinning of assessment.

It is not, nor ever has been, a case of just talking at children.

I wrote about that in Teach, teacher, "Teachest" tackling the development of the teacher skills needed over a career.

Further ITE related blog posts
​
teacher becomer ​
ITT observations
teaching Standards 2012; aide memoire
24652 ; Teacher Standards
​24652 revisited
Thinking lessons; teaching standards
Would you want to be a child in your class?
​