Find a school with structures that explicitly supports teachers in doing their job.
— Tom Starkey (@tstarkey1212) August 22, 2017
Find a school with structures that explicitly supports teachers in doing their job.
— Tom Starkey (@tstarkey1212) August 22, 2017
From Joe Kirby. I think everyone involved in Education should read this.
Every student should be deferential to every school teacher.
Irrespective of personalities; regardless of characteristics, there are no exceptions to this maxim.
Polite and respectful are the characteristics of a deferential relationship and this is exactly how I want my children to treat their teachers. It’s what we all want for our children.
There’s an argument that I could replace the word deferential with obedient. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise but at the moment I think the word obedient takes things unnecessarily far. I think the difference is that obedience is unthinking, uncritical compliance whereas deference confers a respect for students to think for themselves and perhaps disagree but still comply through respect for the teacher’s authority.
Substituting the idea of cooperation for deference is another argument. For me this unnecessarily and unhelpfully undermines the authority of the teacher. The result of a well managed classroom may look like cooperation but to get to that point it is almost certain that the desires of the students will have been suppressed in favour of the commands of the teacher.
Let’s not beat about the bush here, teachers have a responsibility to lead in a classroom, and this is for the benefit of all students. In my experience, disrespectful behaviour is still seen as acceptable by a large number of students and this is, to my mind, a disaster for everyone’s children.
So what is a simple clear message that can suffuse the Education world? It’s deference. All students should be deferential to all school teachers.
Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist
I wonder if it’s possible to be a teacher free from the influence of ideology; a pragmatist maybe.
I was taught on my PGCE by a wonderful person, perhaps the kindest of anyone I’ve met. Blown away is how I would describe my experience of learning to teach. Seduced by the art of pedagogy as it was presented to me, I retain an enormous enthusiasm for teaching and learning ten years on.
How Children Fail by John Holt was not a part of the course, but somehow I came to get a copy and the compassion for children evident in that book augmented my views about Education. He had a precept for teaching that held sway with me:
Learning is not the product of teaching; learning is the product of the activity of learners
Recently I had some painful thoughts reading an interesting blog by Tim Taylor. He quotes the 1967 Plowden Report:
In a single class there may be children who are regularly and perhaps brutally thrashed at home
That’s difficult to read isn’t it.
I am with everyone who stands for the rights of children. I am intensely opposed to corporal punishment, and to think it was outlawed only as recently as 1986 sends shivers down my spine.
I’m a teacher, and I have some influence in the way that my students are treated. I want it to be with dignity and respect. I want students to have the freedom to learn the best that has been thought and said, to go to school knowing they will be in a calm, safe environment, and to celebrate our shared cultural history. I want them to know the plays of Shakespeare, to know this history of our country and the world, and to know the details of our scientific progress. Our children have a wonderful intellectual inheritance.
I’m interested in the best way to achieve this, and surprisingly to me, I’ve come to the conclusion that the way that I was taught on my PGCE, the way that John Holt advocates, is wrong. For example, the idea that students learn best by realising things for themselves through an activity had been presented to me on my PGCE as self-evident. I have spent innumerable hours attempting to come up with clever Starter activities in which students would come to realise what I wanted them to learn by engaging in the activity. This was hard work, but much worse: I believe it was a worse way for students to learn a concept than I if I had told them clearly at the beginning of the lesson.
I have to come to realise that my introduction to teaching on my PGCE was firmly rooted in Progressive Ideology. I accept that and there is a huge body of work in Sociology to back up this Ideology. And there is a tradition, of which John Holt is an example, of teachers who believe it’s the best way to teach. The problem I have here is that I was unaware at the time that this way of teaching was part of an Ideology and I wasn’t introduced to any competing ideologies. It is perhaps a bit like being taught a course on political science by conservatives where only conservatism is studied.
And this is where my belief that ideologies in Education should be explicitly acknowledged and discussed comes from. It was unknown to me, but ideas and ideals that had been presented to me as self-evidently the best way to teach have actually been argued about for centuries. There is a historical debate in Education between Traditionalism and Progressivism.
So, I come back to my question about pragmatism, is it possible to just be a pragmatic teacher, free from ideology, who just does what works?
I certainly believe it’s common to see oneself as such. I was one, and the reason I was was because I was simply unaware that I had been introduced to anything apart from the right way to teach. It is true that these ideologies are rarely talked about by teachers in the staffroom and this is because it is impossible to free oneself from a system of thought if there seems to be no alternative. This is why I think it is damaging to affect that these ideologies are unimportant.
Tim Taylor (who, let me be clear, is someone I have a lot of time for) argues here that ‘most people are somewhere in the middle, neither entirely traditionalist nor entirely progressive’ and I agree. The difference I have with his view is that teachers are not choosing different tenets from the two ideologies, for the most part teachers are unaware of the ideologies, so what they are doing is blindly going with what seems to work for the students. The problem with this is that what one thinks works is very much dependent on the ideology that one’s views are rooted in. This is made apparent in Ofsted inspections of the recent past. Daisy Christodoulou, in her book 7 Myths of Education, analyses Ofsted’s subject reports of good practice and finds that the overwhelming majority of lessons that are praised are ones that I will infer as rooted in Progressive Ideology, that is to say they follow Holt’s precept.
I have experienced this. A few years ago, when my Progressive teaching was at its apotheosis I had a lesson observation from a well regarded consultant who was working with our school for a year. I was warned by my colleagues that this person would do me no favours and was extremely tough. The feedback came through and I had got a 1 (Outstanding) on every aspect of the lesson with the comment that it was ‘a stunning learning experience’. Now, it would be extremely difficult for me to start to think that actually this wasn’t the right way to teach if I was not exposed to alternative analyses of teaching practices wouldn’t it? It is clear to me now that that lesson was not the best way to teach the students but I would not have reached that conclusion had I not been made aware of the differing ideologies.
I know that all teachers want to pass on knowledge, we also all want our students to be treated with dignity and to come out of school with healthy self-esteem. It is in our ideologies that we differ in how this is best achieved. Lets get the debate about traditionalism and progressivism in teaching out into the open so that every teacher can have the knowledge to choose what they think is the right way to teach.
You cannot make children respect or heed you or view your directions with value. But you can build it over time if you are reliable, resolute, obviously care about them academically and as people, but are stubborn enough to be consistent and retain high expectations wherever happens. Don’t try to curry favour with children. Don’t bribe them; don’t fawn or beg them to behave. Build a culture where they want to behave. Be the teacher.
It seems clear to me: either we expect students to listen to us instantly, to follow our instructions, and we back that expectation up, or we don’t expect it. Either we expect respect for teachers, or we allow students to talk back, challenge, lie to our faces, or follow instructions only after a sullen delay.
Good relationships with students are not a necessary precursor to good classroom management. And ‘good relationships’ is itself a nebulous term. Here, I try to unpick the sense from the nonsense, with implications for every teacher, not just ones at the start of their careers.
One of my favourite former colleagues, Dan, was a brilliant mathematician. He’d gone to Cambridge to study maths, and was in his 30s when he worked with us, clearly he’d kept up his intellectual interests after university and I would often encounter interesting ideas for the first time through him. He came to the school on supply, having not managed to keep down a permanent job. (Please note that this was at a previous school to the one I am working in now.)
One of the things about Dan was that he dressed unusually. He also had an unusual manner. His looks lent themselves to him quickly gaining a pejorative nickname with the students, an unpleasant use of mockery that I have no time for. Incredibly to me, I heard some staff using the same name about him, how pathetic of those staff.
I learnt a lot of maths from him, he was knowledgeable and would think about my questions and then give me nice, clear explanations. He was a natural teacher. And at the end of the term? He wasn’t asked to come back.
Were his lessons terrible? No. He was diligent and hard working and he was always interested in improving his practice. He could have improved, as we all can, and he had the same problems as all staff do who join a new school, but the lessons were fine and his classes’ results were in line with the rest of the departments. So why didn’t we keep him?
I believe it’s because people thought he was weird. People thought how is he going to build strong relationships with the students? Our students were denied the expertise of a brilliant mathematician because of the idiotic view that teachers have to forge good relationships with their students prior to them learning. This is the wrong way round, as Tom Bennett says in the quote at the start, good relationships with students are the product of good teaching.
The quoted tweet at the start is key here. If the students expected to behave and do their best for every teacher, I have no doubt that Dan would have won them over. I have no doubt that he would have become extremely popular. Kids like teachers who teach them well; who know a lot and can communicate it well. Forging good relationships is about the relationship between the school culture and the student. If the culture is clearly: students must respect their teachers and do their best in lessons, then we don’t have to worry about supply teachers or teachers who initially look a bit different.
If the culture is not expressed like this clearly, then teachers can still use the culture of ‘school’ in general terms. We can connect students with the culture of needing to do their best, to learn our subjects well, to be knowledgeable, to form good habits and to respect our expertise.
Our expectations as teachers, as Hin-Tai says must be that they do what we want them to do. Students get a great deal out of the Education system, our relationships with them must be built on respect for the institution of school.
It is galling to think that someone who has given no thought to an issue can be right whilst another person who has spent years thinking about that same issue can be wrong, but this is the case.
Let me give you an example: on my PGCE I was told that rather than memorise large amounts of small chunks, students found it easier to attempt to understand big ideas that incorporated these small chunks. So, instead of breaking down new ideas into small chunks, I should teach the big idea holistically, thereby reducing the amount of seemingly arbitrary knowledge students would have to remember and increasing their conceptual understanding. My PGCE tutors were good people, who had put a tremendous amount of thought into teaching: they were well read and had clear, sound arguments for making this case.
Cut to me working in a school on my placement, and teachers in my department telling me that the way I was going wrong in my teaching was that I wasn’t ‘breaking it down’ enough. When I asked way I should teach like that, I was told, with some exasperation, that it was obvious: kids need to learn things in small chunks and master those small chunks before moving on. The only argument they had for their way, beyond their own observations, was that this was the way everyone had always taught it. A line of argument that I came to despise.
Now, I think teaching in small chunks is definitely the right way for students to learn, and that my PGCE tutors were wrong. It’s taken well researched arguments and articles such as Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction to convince me, and I have changed my mind.
The people who had put a huge amount of reason and effort into determining what was right turned out to be wrong, and those who had just done thing because that was the way they’d always been done were right. I think that this is:
The line of argument that I despise? This is the way we’ve always done it has validity and I am wrong to despise it. If a method of teaching has always been used, then there are probably very good reasons for this, even if the person using the argument can’t explain what these are.
All this brings me to debates in Education. As uncomfortable and unpleasant as it may be, people who have put a great deal of thought into their views on Education, and have come up with clever, plausible arguments can be completely wrong. Now, if I put myself in the shoes of one such person: a person with reason, thought, logic and evidence behind my ideas; ideas that have been championed and supported by colleagues. And then someone comes along and tells me that I’m wrong? I’m going to suggest that it will be very hard for me not to be affronted, even offended by this challenge.
And this is where Educational debates can become uncomfortable. My view is that the standard response to this challenge is for the person who is challenged to first seek to show that they’re right, and then if this fails, to show that they are at least partially right.
I think that when people want to show that they are at least partially right, they are using the fallacy of the golden mean. That is, when there are two distinct views, the fallacy is that the truth lies somewhere between them. This is very rarely, if ever, the case and the reality is that someone will be right and someone will be wrong. In my example, it cannot be partially right that students learn better by being taught a concept in a holistic way: either they learn better by being taught new information in small chunks or they don’t, there’s no middle compromise to assuage the feelings of everyone involved.
It’s not pleasant, I wish it wasn’t true, but sometimes even with a huge amount of intelligence, good intentions and reasoned arguments one can still be wrong.
A lot of talk about teaching is nonsense.
Is that harsh? Can I not say that?
I’ve had CPD in a past school that was pure, unadulterated nonsense. The educational consultant presented nothing based on evidence or research and mainly said the word engage quite loudly over and over. This caused a lot of fun to be had at the pub later, but clearly there are serious implications to it as well.
If some of my former colleagues had brought into the consultant’s ideas then I have no doubt they would be taking a backwards step in their practice.
Should this not be called out?
All opinions about teaching are not equally valid.
If there are 100 ideas about how to teach it does not follow that the best way is somewhere in the middle. The best ways to teach are those based on what has been proven to work.
Giving credence to outdated, unhelpful ideas only serves to make things worse for our students.
No one wants to make people feel bad for having an opinion, but far more importantly, no one wants the teaching profession to be suffused with nonsensical ideas just because they sound creative and ‘cool’.
Calling out bad ideas is not hating, it’s helping us all become a better profession.
To say it is hard work to embed new habits is a huge understatement.
Embedding great behaviour in classes is something that is completely bizarrely not frequently discussed. Some nonsense about getting the lessons right equating with good behaviour has become a prevalent belief. More nonsense about behaviour being simply all about ‘positive relationships’ has further muddied the water.
The result is that teachers don’t spend enough time thinking about and talking about straightforward methods to front-load behaviour expectations. Often, good behaviour is expected and behaviour is only discussed after things have gone wrong.
I have come up with a great, simple way to get all teachers to talk about behaviour with their classes. It is a challenge to commit to this for every day of the first half-term starting in September 2017. Visit the website and sign up! There will be more details in September.
Minimal effort; huge impact.
Some of the things I’ve learned/ realised this year about teaching. In no particular order:
Lets get to the point quickly. What should all classroom teachers do to nail behaviour management?
Easier said than done I know.
*All of this is far, far easier with strong, clear whole-school policies.