If you are a Fawlty Towers aficionado, you have probably already given an answer. There will be many other examples, but that’s the one that readily springs to mind. But, in current parlance, it could be "teacher judgement".

There has been a recent spate of blogging and tweeting about a range of topics, arguing that they somehow don’t serve a purpose in education, but also that they are flawed because of potential human error, or teacher judgement as I like to call it.

When examined closely, every single one of them revolves around a central premise of knowing the learners as well as possible.

To mention a few that have come under the spotlight; you can’t see learning in a lesson; taking full account of prior outcomes, especially at transition/transfer; differentiation in plans and in expectations; personal targets; adjusting the task demands within a lesson to the evident needs of the learners from outcomes; feedback (oral seems to be just about ok for now, but marking gets a no); moderation activities.

Reasons given are often “dumbing down” expectation, or how judgement can be skewed by personal bias. I could rightly ask, where does the novelty program of “Growth Mindset (GM)” fit into this? If you can’t see learning and you can’t challenge and support learning or judge progress accurately, then, to me, by extension, you can’t see GM either, but I could argue that GM is “just what we do”, or should be doing every day.
 
Each of the challenged elements has grown into an aspect of learning and teaching, but each, taken in isolation, is capable of being grown into something that can become it’s own version of Frankenstein, leading to shortcuts and myth-development.

Holistically there is a common sense approach, which I have characterised as analyse-plan-do-review-record, with each having contributory elements. Thinking about teaching metacognitively requires a broad model which can aid detailed thinking of the whole.

There may be an element of Primary-Secondary difference, which may have to be acknowledged. By the end of week four in a school year, a Primary teacher will have been with their children for a time equal to a full year of two hours a week in Secondary, enabling more in-lesson dialogue. They should know the children better. Secondaries may well have to depend on lesson outcomes in other forms to inform decisions.

Quality time spent in the beginning unpicking the needs of children can allow some finer tuning of challenge, leading to nuanced interactions, which in turn leads to better understanding of the child.

Planning can be challenging, especially if the institution demands certain things to be included. While this might be needed in early career, it is less necessary later, unless there are concerns. It is far better to understand the learning needs over a longer timescale, so that adjustments can be made, while still connecting to the planning timeline. Teachers need to think about learning and record the essentials, so that there is some signal of intention should they be absent for a while. In that way the institution and the learners are not put at risk.

As for the rest, most of the elements are embedded in the dialogue that a teacher has with learners, in sharing information, discussing ongoing learning, coaching and guiding, giving feedback; all seeking to keep forward momentum in learning.

Where there is talk of flawed teacher judgement, this has always been the case and is likely to remain so. I have yet to hear a call for better informed teacher judgement and yet, in a scenario where a nationally common language of progress, levels, albeit with flaws did exist, it strikes me that there will, in the near future be some very challenging conversations to be had, especially across Key Stages 2&3, where the new Primary National Curriculum English and maths may ensure that children transfer with potentially greater skill and knowledge than previously. Where it was rare for levels to be moderated between key stages, the mismatch could become greater, with different schools having different judgements. I am still waiting for a Secondary school to fully argue for “life beyond GCSE grades”.

Rather than seek to create no space for inter-school and inter-Key Stage discussion that might throw some light onto decisions, I’d want to see holistic approaches across a broad range of schools, because there needs to be a framework against which to make rapid decisions. Moderation to share outcomes, coupled with dialogue, will support experienced staff as well as newly qualified teachers. To plot the quality journey through time should enable clearer, if not perfect judgement.

What’s a good, or better outcome in an aspect of writing for a year 2/4/6 child? Exemplars please? What makes it good or better and what are the next (personal) challenges? Because, within the cohort based NC, there will still be a range of needs, even if “gaps are closed”, which is arguable.

Shared outcomes could both clarify and challenge. We have entered a new phase of education. The whole will stand or fall on the relative security of teacher judgement. Teachers will get better at judging and, by extension, of challenging, the more they do it.
​
Very experienced teachers arguing to take away the tools will weaken that thought process for developing teachers, who may need to go through a developmental route to attain that level of expertise.

Move it, draw it, think it, talk it……
Start small and grow thinking.
​

A couple of months ago, I was asked to lead a training session on feedback in mathematics. I spent some time reflecting on the practicalities of this before accepting, as I could see a number of potential pitfalls and blocks, dependent on the school and individual thinking and working methods.

In the end, I decided to take as a central theme talking maths. This would allow me to explore presentational ideas as well as interactive elements of a lesson.

All thinking about teaching and learning comes back to the learner and the teacher understanding or their needs at a particular point in time, with regard to the specifics of the next steps in teaching. This knowledge should build on their previous experiences, with an overview of prior attainment, both of which will determine the means of sharing the new ideas, links with the prior learning, but also to consider the need to explain and model the new information in the light of individual needs. This modelling might be through concrete apparatus, visual diagrammatic representation or oral modelling, if the learners have secure internal models, which they can manipulate.

It would be interesting to know when the concrete apparatus is withdrawn from the teacher explanation repertoire, as this can be seen as only useful for SEN children, yet, used effectively, can enable even more able learners to make connections through very clear visual manipulation. This was made clear in the training session when I demonstrated the use of Dienes base 10 material to explore place value and four rules with decimals.

How do you know what a child is thinking unless you ask them directly to explain something?

We have become used to Talk for Writing, so why not Talk for Maths? If teachers and children engage in learning dialogue, the teacher can get a better view of how the children are thinking and the learners might become more secure in their willingness to have a go, especially when facing novel situations. We also talk of it being ok to make mistakes, especially in the context of Growth Mindset thinking. I would suggest that an openness to dialogue underpins GM, in that a child should be able to share insecurities and to be able to talk through a resolution. Learning to think and talk is an important stage in being able to do so internally, from the scaffolds developed through discussion and manipulation.

Language is key. Using the correct vocabulary and ensuring that children do so, underpins a mutual understanding, and may require interpretation and linkages to a broad range of synonymous language, to ensure all understand. In my opinion, it is fine for a learner to ask for a reminder. Asking supports Teacher Assessment, in that it might demonstrate a level of insecurity, which needs to be addressed to avoid this getting greater.

Asking a child to explain the steps they would take to solve an equation offers an opportunity for writing instructions, or reportage, but also links with a “Show your working” approach, which I would also advocate. Either way, I’d be looking to have as much information as possible available to review outcomes in the round. It is very easy to see maths as producing right or wrong answers.

Talking the steps and showing your working, with apparatus, written models and written methods, would, for me underpin any investigative approach to understanding a child who may be expressing difficulty.

This should be a teacher level activity, so that any remediation needed, perhaps in the hands of a Teaching Assistant, can be focused to the real needs, rather than assumption. The mathematical thinking of the TA needs to be considered, so that “short cuts” and alternative methods are not deployed to make it seem as if the child is getting it right, when they have underlying issues.

Children should be supported in their confidence throughout, encouraging effort, exploring alternative scaffolds and materials as needed, removing these when they are beginning to show confidence. It is also important to demonstrate the links between the scaffolds, eg number lines, number squares, Numicon, Dienes, so that they can select if need arises.
 
Using the analogy of teacher as storyteller, it is important that children are told the story in such a way that they can see the storyline and the developing detail, as it gets progressively harder. Activity should be accompanied by modelling, in a form that supports each learner’s needs. Articulation, from both teacher and learners should be a high priority, as this provides the insights that guide teacher decisions. Just marking the books can often give false information.

Keep talking mathematically, across all subjects, so that it is clear to learners where it can be used and applied. They must learn that maths is all around us, from an early age. Everything can be counted or measured in some form.

Linked posts
Maths everywhere
Show maths, talk maths, draw maths, image maths.
Investigating mathematically
More maths Activities
Quick (one minute) data
The answer is twelve?
Story maths?
​

With a little more time on my hands as I take more control over my diary, I am finding that I read more, in part as a result of being an active proponent of the #teacher5aday project that has been running throughout this year. As we reach the end of the year, it is perhaps a time to reflect on reading journeys as a whole. What actually makes a reader a reader?

There is a huge and continual debate about the “nuts and bolts” of reading, with often polarised disagreements about the right or wrong way to learn. You have the basics of letters, sounds, words, sentences, text and this is not seeking to determine the best way to teach it, because, I think that there is a need to explore the needs of the learner in all this. It is relatively easy to teach the discrete concepts that constitute reading, but it is in the mind of the learner that the whole has to come together to make sense.

I get upset at announcements that x% of children “cannot read” at certain points in their school lives, more for the children, who may have individual reasons why this is the case, but may, in reality, be close to the mark of being a reader, but failed to get a mark in a test that supplied the data for the comment.

Phonics was an integral part of teaching and learning, with Jolly Phonics in the Infants and more general phonics check lists within the juniors. Spellings were a mixture of personal spelling errors to address, with topic words and for some word “families” to explore. I would have to admit that it probably reflected my own analytical approach.

Reading, for many years used to be a close encounter between a teacher and the child, as it was based on individualised progress, sharing some of the book, setting targets for reading in between the shared sessions, often with the help of parents through a home-school reading book. Up until 1992, my career did not include any kind of teaching assistant, and in the early days, these were often used for the administration tasks in the room. Teachers knew the schemes available and many knew the authors and the free readers that were in the libraries.

Creating a class reading area was an important element of the room, especially when particular authors were selected as the “author of the month”. Rather than book reviews, we often wrote a postcard or a letter to the author after the month and, if the author was still alive, would send them off through the publisher, often receiving a reply that caused great excitement.

Books were available at a challenge level, and a fluency level, so that children could read for pleasure, as well as read for challenge, but avoiding books that would cause frustration and demotivation. Bookmarks, or notes in the home-school book highlighted the different challenges, so that parents could understand and listen appropriately.

Miscue analysis, by the teacher, underpinned some of the listening, to identify areas where the child may be having an issue. These would be addressed appropriately and in timely fashion, with individual guidance and support.

Just listening intently to children read meant that they had to perform. Some are better performers than others, when reading aloud. I would always give preparation time to the children to allow them to read to themselves for five minutes before reading aloud to me. As we would share some of the prepared text, this assurance often led to improved fluency. Reading aloud, from “cold” can be a challenge for adults.

Sustained silent reading was an after lunch entry activity, always from their fluency level book, so that they could read independently for enjoyment, as well as using some of the time for changing within that same level, if the book was finished.

There was always a class reader, with potentially “dead” time being used to share another few pages, as well as some dedicated sharing time at the end of the school day, after everything had been properly cleared away. It is surprising how a good book can encourage rapidity in tidying.

For more able readers, two things came together; selecting their own books as “free readers” but also “conferencing”; readers talking about what they were reading, to encourage classmates to try new and perhaps more challenging reads. In that way too, teachers got to know a greater range of books, often then reading them for themselves. The selection of books was based on the “five finger rule”; if, in reading the first page, more than five difficult words were encountered, children were encouraged to choose another. This was to encourage fluency and stamina through reading longer books. Challenge was still kept for texts shared by the teacher. Children had the right not to complete the book if they were not enjoying the narrative or the author style, but this was discussed before agreeing. Rapid and easy changing routines are essential.

In the days of class tape recorders as the only technology, every child had a personal tape, into which, at least once a fortnight, they had to record a few pages of their book, while listening through headphones, then listening back to themselves while they read silently. This provided a stimulus, but also a record of progress, which they took home at the end of the year. Digital technology offers the same potential.

Parent guidance is essential, if they are not to become a negative element in reading progress. This might entail a reading evening, an information booklet on how to share a book or personal advice at parent’s evenings. Equally, a bookmark that says either “I think I can read this by myself”, “I may need some help with some words in this book”, or “I’ve chosen to challenge myself with this book and it might be hard”. If the bookmarks are on green, amber and red card, they are easily interchangeable and easy to spot.

Reading is personal. If a child is experiencing difficulty in reading, it is incumbent on the teacher to investigate fully what might be causing the issue and to set up appropriate support to address the issues. It might simply be choosing a more appropriate book. Analyse the need, plan for remedy, action the plan effectively, follow up regularly, check progress and coach accordingly. Turn them into comfortable performers when reading aloud.
​
This is the only way that children will leave Primary schools able to read. In my school, we got 95% of children reading at level 4+ (50-60% L5) by using these approaches.


Good readers made better writers. There was considerable spin-off benefit to this approach.

Inclusion is just doing your job
The 2014 SEN framework
SEN changes for 2014
Top Tips for Inclusion
SEND 2014; possible class teacher Crib sheet.
When is SEND?
Individual needs
Individual needs; fine tuning
SEN Radio?
SEND Building an individual case study.
SEND Tic-Tac-Toe
SEND Teachers as investigators
​

Special Educational Needs (Disability) appears with regularity in my Twitter timeline, with, on one side, teachers saying how little training they have had to deal with that issue, as if it is a significantly separate aspect of teaching and on the other, those with some specialist background, in whose laps many of the problems are placed.

Changes to the organisation of SEND provision have been in train for the past few years, during which time I have blogged, as I have come across useful information. These blogs are archived within the contents list of the blog, but I have extracted (some of) them to make what I hope is a more holistic document here.

I have focused on issues as they affect mainstream school teachers. I have sought to develop a coherent, investigative approach that can fit with normal classroom practice, largely premised on the need to look, to reflect and record concerns to inform deeper conversations. I am not looking to describe the range of individual needs that might be encountered. There are many expert colleagues who are much more able to offer insights into the specifics of individualised SEN(D).

SEN is the area of teaching and learning where teacher expertise may be challenged. This, in itself, is an indicator of potential need, but, for a teacher, can create a feeling of vulnerability. There is always the possibility of meeting a child whose needs fall outside previous experience; the truism that “you’ve met one child with autism, so you’ve met one child with autism” can exemplify many areas of SEN. General statements like, “x cannot read”, are unhelpful to discussion. Investigating and sharing specifically what a child can and cannot do can lead to focused intervention, rather than general approaches.  Leaving a child in a situation where they are clearly failing, are seen to be failing and know that this is the case, is destructive to the teacher and the child. Acknowledging specific issues and finding the specific means to address the issues demonstrates a positive approach for everyone to acknowledge.

There is no doubt that, when a teacher encounters a child who does not fit the “normal mould” that they are used to, that they may experience unease. However, although it is possible for changes to occur later in life, as a result of illness, or a degenerative situation that suddenly becomes apparent, it is unlikely that special needs will be unknown to some extent, relatively early in a child’s life, at home and (pre)school. Concerns will have been raised, by parents or professionals, which hopefully have been followed up and investigated, so that, by the time a child enters school there may already be substantial information available.

Inclusion is just doing your job
Inclusion is seeking to effectively teach each and every child who enters your classroom. They will be known from earlier records, from preschool and parents on entry to school. Therefore, from the early stages of their education journey, teachers can analyse, prepare and begin to plan what they think are appropriate challenges and support structures for known cases. Plans should be adaptable to developing needs with challenge and support altered to evidence. I would amplify the word challenge, as it is easy to fall into the trap of considering needs to be lower level than reality.  

On entry into the formal learning situation, the staff eyes and ears are alert to issues, noting down things that are said and done, to ensure that future reflections can be based on pattern finding or evidence across a range of issues. Evidence finding is the bread and butter of teacher life, in terms of interactions, questioning, feedback, support and outcomes.

This was summarised in a pair of posts; SEND Tic-Tac-Toe  (team including the child; in class decisions, team around the child; including parent(s) and in-house expertise; Team including external experts) and SEN Radio? (Record of Actions, Discussions and Decisions, Interventions and Outcomes) which propounded the ides of fine tuning to need.
Consolidating this into a case study can support the efforts of external professionals to provide appropriate advice and support. A lack of detailed information ensures that an investigation has to be put in place. SEND Teachers as investigators

In order to support classteacher thinking, especially about the details of some aspects of SEND, I pulled together a crib-sheet, SEND 2014; possible class teacher Crib sheet.
which proved popular, as a start point for planning, thinking and record keeping.
​

The journey to SEN decisions is likely to be a phased affair, especially with regard to learning issues and possibly over an extended timescale for many children, much to the frustration of parents and teachers. “Getting a handle” on the problem can be a case of investigation leading to diagnosis, prescription and checking out the potential for “recovery”.

Unlike taking tablets, remediation is also embedded in relationships and these need to be carefully considered. Children know where they are in comparison with their peers. They can judge for themselves those who can and can also highlight that they can’t, across a wide range of subjects. This can lead to diminished self-esteem, to go along with the understanding of a learning struggle. They know when they are being given easier things to do, so presenting challenge with a clear rationale is important.

Allocating a teaching assistant can create a mutually dependent relationship, with a child’s independence being limited by constant adult support. Equally, the TA role can be dependent on the child’s continuing needs. It need careful oversight and review.

The child needs can challenge the teacher expertise, especially in the earlier stages of their career, where they may not have had wide experience across several year groups, so can understand where the child is on the development spectrum. Where this is the case, reference to teachers of earlier years can provide pedagogical and practical advice. In many ways, teaching standard 2, progress and outcomes, is THE key standard to support teacher understanding. What is the “normal” learning journey of children from early years through to year 6? Ok, I know this will never be linear, but there are developmental patterns which describe the possible jumps through aspects of the curriculum. Unpicking what progress “might be like”, gives a background to raising concerns.

Keeping a track of all the different needs of children is currently significant, within the change National Curriculum, where cohort expectations have been articulated, with “labels” that will be allocated at the end of Key Stages that suggest that a child may not be at the expected standard, a euphemism for possible SEN. There is a need to ensure cohort coverage while at the same time looking at the areas where individuals might not be quite at the level required.
​
I would propose the use of Exercise books as personal organisers? as a means of keeping track of the two aspects, where lesson by lesson progress through the curriculum is evidenced, but flip-out sheets record the specifics of individual needs. The whole becomes a personal portfolio, from which year-based portfolios can be developed. They also allow clarity in formative and summative assessment, as well as reporting, because the evidence is available for all viewers.
​

​Rationale, order and organisation in everything? Or just applied pressure?

In my last blog, which was a slightly angry rant, I looked at the (often negative) impact of change over time in my education career. In this post, I want to explore some of the background to the changes and perhaps consider why successive Governments often go wide of the mark and decisions have unintended consequences.

There are issues in education and always have been. Many of these are as a result of geography or demography. Some will be cultural; inside and outside the schools, terms of local and national expectations.

Managing education is a substantial project, across a variety of levels, Government, region and locality. But there are, essentially, four elements across which to make decisions; space, personnel, resources and time. At a macro level, this is school places; currently in dispute, as “free schools” are the only route; teacher provision, again an area of dispute, with a shortfall forecast over the next ten years.

Management and leadership rely on a range of skills, including analytical, organisational and evaluative. If the analysis of the problem is inaccurate, then subsequent actions are likely to be awry, with projects falling. After 40+ years of direct experience in education, I would suggest that at a Government level this has fallen down over the past twenty years, as education has become higher profile as an “area for improvement”, leading to global, top down leadership and, for many, significant distraction, stress and, in some cases, a backward momentum.

It is a truism that some schools perform better than others; always have and probably always will. This can be down to geography, demographic or the luck to appoint exactly the right staff at the right time and in the right specialisms, to create the team that embeds a school culture that endures through small changes, as personnel move on. Others struggle to appoint, so cannot firmly embed a “tribal culture”, ensuring that there is a constant adjustment in approach.

To me, introducing the National Strategies in 1997 was a significant low, in that, despite knowing that our school was achieving above expectations, very able staff began to question their abilities and their approaches. The constant political rhetoric became a distraction from the particular needs of the children. I know that prescribed (suggested) approaches, especially to reading, ie guided reading groups, for many was a backward step, losing the close relationship that teachers had with their knowledge of literature and reader challenge and progress.

It is the prescriptive (proscriptive) nature of national initiatives that divert local schools from providing high quality provision. Where, in my early career, there was the School Council, amongst others, which would regularly share “good practice” for reflection, today we get direction, but up to a point. I’ll discuss current issues at the end of the blog.

The college of teachers that is the hallmark of a good school’s staffroom, is the engine room of thinking that provides the basis for development, often adapting ideas to local circumstance, space, time, resources and personnel. They need permission to think, as well as time and space to think and build, to stop being reactive to initiatives. A reactive workforce stops thinking for themselves, so the situation becomes debilitating.

It is the local school’s job to make education work for each child in their care. This might require adaptation; they are best placed to effect this.

​I had local experience of managing education as a headteacher under Local Management of Schools implementation, when we moved from essentially controlling a local resource budget to managing a small business, employing a couple of dozen people across several different roles. Secondary colleagues run medium sized businesses. It is a question of scale and systems put in place to ensure that all runs smoothly.

Essentially, education is a people-based system, with 80%+ of any school budget being spent on staffing costs, largely front-line teachers. There is a need for personnel, with a varied expertise base, to cover the wide range of roles that exist in a modern school. At classroom level there is a particular number of teachers needed to teach classes, provide cover, support and additional expertise. The number of roles in schools has multiplied over the years, often with non-teaching staff, specialist and non-specialist, outnumbering the teachers. This often leads to several layers of management, culminating in the classteacher as a team leader of a small group of adults.

Problem; if you can’t get the people, your system can be put under strain. Teacher supply is a national issue, with localised problems, with university ITE, School Direct, Teach First among a range of entry arrangements.
Assistant roles can also suffer, especially if there is a need for some specialist skills to support a specific need. To appoint, then train, can cause a delay in providing quality support.
Problem; High quality communication across such a complex system is essential, to ensure that everyone is enabled to operate at peak productivity. This is often an area that is left until issues arise, so reactive approaches and last minute information become the norm.
Problem; school Governing bodies are now judged as part of the leadership and management of the school. There may be local difficulty in finding the range of skills needed to perform the range of functions needed.

School administration relies on a number of knowledgeable staff. Some schools have a business manager, others will have an administrative officer, or some other title, in charge of the office processes. With school budgets covering significant amounts of money, and with many schools also covering personnel functions, the room for issues arising grows greater.

Problem; As the head of a one form entry Primary, I recall a period when my admin officer had to take a month off. This gap was sudden, so, being a part of the LA scheme, I was able to find some temporary specialist cover. This luxury may not be available within a more fragmented system, with many isolated schools.

Schools need resources. As a member of the Local Authority, we had the luxury of a centralised purchasing system that ensured that the basic requirements of the school, as far as paper and pencils were easily met on a short term basis, so we didn’t need a huge store cupboard throughout the year. There were also schemes that enabled group purchase of larger items, such as ICT equipment. This system at the specialist end could be compromised by schools “doing their own thing”, but with education spending being so high, local suppliers often compete with the central system to provide better deals.

Problem; At its simplest, schools needs systems that ensure the right resources are available in the right place at the right time. The information system that underpins decisions needs to be clear to everyone, over an appropriate timescale, so that resources are available on time.

Curriculum provision is currently determined more and more from the centre, at every level, from 3-18. The rationale is to provide the best to every child, but the reality is that each setting operates under local conditions, with all the above issues impacting, from the appointment of heads and deputies through all other staffing categories to the quality of the available built and natural school environment, then the provision of resources, and so on. Curriculum provision can be compromised at many levels.

Local decisions, by schools, to take in children who may have disturbed education backgrounds, an influx of groups such as immigrant or traveller children, can lead to local difficulty in judged outcomes, as has bene recently exemplified by @Oldprimaryhead1 in his blogs.

System assessment. At the inspection level, schools can be found to be in need of improvement, as a result of any of the issues discussed above. The audit judgement may be correct, as far as the system is concerned, but, unless there is clarity about the contextual issues, the organisation can be set up to fail, should they not be able to address key issues; if teachers are not available to you, you can’t appoint them. Ofsted is an expensive audit system. It needs to have a direct role in school development and improvement. Audit can lead to advice in my opinion, without compromising the validity of the judgement. School financial audits lead to advice.

And assessment in general. It has been interesting over the past couple of years to see the emergence of assessment as a major issue in schools, largely due to the decision, by the Government, to abandon the national levels system that had been around since 1987. This enabled a year based National Curriculum to be put in place, with the decision that all schools should decide their own systems for determining and describing progress between the national test periods, at 4, 7 and 11 in Primaries.

It has become such a complex area that I can only refer to an excellent blog by @MichaelTidd who recently compared the expectation of children aged 11 with a reasonable pass at GCSE. Assessment within the year based curriculum, will, in my opinion, lead to inertia for many learners, as schools seek to ensure that whole cohorts “master” concepts before they can move on. Unless teachers get to be really creative in developing what are being called “deeper challenges”, being able will become a millstone.

Children need reassurance about what the teacher thinks that they can do and have an idea of what they are seeking to achieve next.

Children are individuals. They need to see learning as their personal journey; that they are the key stakeholder, so that they can see the point of effort. When all is said and done, everything that any school aspires to is getting the best out of each child. The system should support, not hinder this.

I am beginning to consider that the squeeze applied by the Government may be getting in the way, yet they bear overall responsibility…

​I am reflecting that I may be part of a dwindling minority, someone who was actually teaching before and during the introduction of the original National Curriculum. I have to say that policy makers have been responsible for multiple errors in the search for the “perfect” system, usually by tweaks, but more recently with revolution, especially in Primary, leaving it fragile, bereft and vulnerable.

1985
In the course of my deputy headship, the original National Curriculum was introduced. For a few years prior to that, we had been developing a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum for the school, with writing supported by the National Writing Project (see specific blog), so that, when the curriculum was specified, our audit showed a 95% correspondence.

A few tweaks were needed, so it was largely life as usual, except for one key area. The National Curriculum also introduced a national approach to describing progress, as level descriptors came into the vocabulary and in the beginning they were seen as generalised progress/capability descriptors. This introduced the potential for detailed moderation, which we did, and in so doing, raised the expectations of everyone, to a point where, as a First School, transferring after year 3, we were sending in excess of 50% to the Middle School achieving level 3 or better, with evidence. However, the Middle School staff were less than willing to accept the outcomes, despite the evidence.
In the same way, Secondaries did not accept the Middle/Junior School outcomes.
​

​1995
It was the best of times…
I became a headteacher in 1990, taking on a school that might now be termed as “coasting”. Early introduction of rigorous moderation activities quickly showed that expectations were not sufficiently high. As a result, one or two felt a need to move on, which created the space to build within a revised vision and outlook.

Sir Ron Dearing was asked to review the National Curriculum in 1993/94, so this gave a new chance for audit and reflection.

A significant focus on topic detail, working with County inspectors and advisers, created what became known as “Topic Specifications”, ensured coverage and appropriate depth, but also within an annual plan, which ensured that topics took an appropriate amount of time, rather than becoming extended to fill the space.
Maths and English were twin needs, with each receiving considerable attention, the former in supporting clarity in expectation, with the latter ensuring high quality reading approaches and incorporating the best of the National Writing Project outcomes, culminating in the two page approach to writing.
​
Sport, outdoor activities, extended school days with multiple club offerings were put in place to enhance opportunities.
The evidence of success was two-fold. We retained children who might otherwise have gone to local private schools at 8 years of age, and also into year 6, where bordering county admissions at 11 could mean a drain. We grew from 140 children to 270, with early admission changes. The second success was moving steadily upwards from a start point of 65% level 4+ at KS2 SATs. The school had a good reputation, for giving broad opportunities and getting the best out of children.

​2005
It was the worst of times…
Will always go down as my annus horibilis, as it brought both the rapid decline and death of a well-loved, then year 2 teacher, to be followed a few months later by the terminal decline of my wife. That year, our year 6 SATs scores were in the mid-90% level 4+, but the school was not in a place to celebrate, after such an unpleasant period and as was highlighted, year 2 showed “decline”. I stopped being a head in January 2006.
2015
The past ten years have offered a broad range, a portfolio, of opportunities to work across a range of schools across the country within different remits, each enabling new insights into practice and restrictions. I have seen a great deal of wonderful practice, but often with a health warning that it might have to change.
Thirty years on, what’s changed?
In general, I would argue that, compared to 28 years ago, children achieve at a higher level that they did before. Whether this is down to better understanding of how to pass tests, I am less sure, but there has been a level of improvement across that time.
Teachers are still very keen to improve their practice, but now do so additionally with weekend conferences and twilight teachmeets. Those who participate celebrate the profession. Blogging and tweeting enable roader thinking and dialogue, across the country.
A new, “rigorous” approach to the curriculum that threatens many subjects that add considerable value to Primary learning, with a “relentless” focus on maths and English and an assessment expectation at eleven that would challenge children several years older and even many adults. The downside, as far as I am concerned, is the diminishing of many subjects through over-emphasis on English and Maths.
Many Secondary schools still less than willing to accept the outcomes from Primary feeders. With no national language to even partially describe current capabilities, this will become an issue at every stage where a child moves school. I predict that testing on arrival will become the norm in many settings, during any transition.
Levels were sacrificed on the altar of the new curriculum. During their lifetime, they too were tweaked, from reasonably simple beginnings that supported moderation discussion, through sub-levels into the APP scheme that became a significant millstone to many, to the point where they became almost meaningless guesswork as teachers sought to evidence ever more minute points of development. This had an impact on planning and dynamics as teachers sought to teach very fine points securely, but lost sight of the big picture. Too many approaches then became stereotyped and shared as bright ideas.
Listening to Tim Oates speak at a conference where I was also presenting and paraphrasing part of his message; the current curriculum is easier to test than recent incarnations. Even Dylan Wiliam has said the original levels were ok. I predict that there will be a call for a national system within a couple of years, but fear that this will be based on “yearness” statements, with some children described very clearly as not achieving. Advancement and holding back will become a part of the political rhetoric.
Some, more experienced schools and teachers, will have the skills to make the new “freedoms” work for them, many will not. New teachers will probably have to struggle with a new scheme within every move.
Moderation discussions, even with Ofsted, will require the specific of each scheme to be explained, so that there is a common language to support the dialogue.
I anticipate that during the next four years, as with the NHS, the education system will show signs of cracking, not least as a result of teacher shortage, putting extra pressure on “career teachers”. Shoring this up will put the onus on the schools rather than the national system to address their needs, which will add pressure to headship.
Coherence, cohesion and collegiality may well diminish as schools enter a bit of a free for all, seeking “bums on seats”; children, who bring in the money and in staffing, with more poaching between schools.
Why am I angry?
Quite simply because the profession that I love and have loved throughout my career (41 years plus 3 training) is being pulled in too many directions with little, if any, coordinating thought and support from the centre. Where it was built on a significant level of certainty, as in 95% correspondence between curriculum changes, it offered a firm base upon which to found children’s learning careers. Uncertainty, as currently being experienced, is in danger of offering children a lesser education in the name of “higher expectations” and “rigour”.
Schools and individuals are being set up to fail, as all are deemed capable of being above average; many children will learn at the age of seven that they are behind their peers, which makes a mockery of all the talk of not labelling, as with levels. Better to be a level 1 than not good enough?
There is a lack of joined up thinking which allows disparate elements to pick and choose a focus for improvement, without seeking to explore the impact on other areas.
Children still have to live in the real world, not in some literary game like “Brave New World” or “1984”. It will be their world in due course. With a clutch of grandchildren, I have their best interests at heart.
Children deserve the best start. We may be creating less than the best. The world is not just maths and English.

We are all observers of the world, of a specific time and place. Our ability to interact with the world will be determined by our depth of knowledge of that which we observe. This is ultimately an extended form of classificatory language, as well as specific learned knowledge. Deeper knowledge of attributes enable broader and deeper insights and questioning. “I’ve never noticed that before” can become the catalyst for thought or research.

I have been a keen wildlife enthusiast since childhood, had the great fortune to have a best friend whose dad was the zoo superintendent at Paignton Zoo, so we had access after-hours and also knew many of the keepers, so got up close and personal with many more animals. I also kept my live insect collection beside the bed. With Gerald Durrell as my hero, my original career choice was to be a zoologist or an entomologist.

In my 20’s, I ran a Watch group for the Hampshire Wildlife Trust, meeting regularly once a month to introduce children to a love of the outdoors and nature. I took over the County volunteer role for several years until school management duties precluded that.

When out on a walk, knowing the names of things can mean that you look a little closer, so a green sward could be the opportunity to explore a wide range of plants or insects. My garden in France allows further opportunities; last week for example, I was able to see migrating storks flying south-south west and also a black woodpecker, initially identified only by its sound. I’ve red squirrels, a range of fritillary and swallowtail butterflies, hummingbird hawk moths and mole crickets.

There’s a great deal of talk about “Austin’s Butterfly” in terms of drafting, evaluating and redrafting. There’s not much point, unless we also encourage the Austin’s of this world to go out and look for themselves. Equally, there is talk of deeper vocabulary. This needs linkages as in classification, so that the knowledge can be apportioned appropriately.

Exploring an example.
A child views an object in the air. It can be seen to be moving in a definite but slightly strange way, haphazard, due to what appear to be slightly floppy moving appendages. In reply to the regular question “What’s that?”, or simply the pointed finger, the word “butterfly” is brought into the shared vocabulary, although family alternative words can also appear, eg “flutterby”.

Further exposure to such experiences can begin to extend the thinking. Colours, sizes, shapes, food plants can eventually be considered. Differentiating an orange-tip from a cabbage white might involve some level of relatively easy comparison, but compare green veined white and cabbage white, or different fritillaries gets a lot harder.

Interest can be further developed through research. My early “library” was based around the “Observer” series of books, easily available at the local second hand shop. Learning about life cycles, egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult as well as alternative associated words, larva, pupa, imago, creates further broadening and deepening.

How would you know if (certain) butterflies were endangered if you didn’t know these things? Food and habitat scarcity and poor weather conditions can impact, with devastating consequences.

Observation is a basic skill. Learning to look closely needs encouragement, an interested other and perhaps, a magnifying glass, through which to look ever closer, enhanced looking.
​
Re “Austin’s Butterfly”. Look before you draw…