Over the past three decades, what fads do you think teachers have wasted their time doing the most?
Teachers don’t need fads. What teachers need are pragmatic strategies for the classroom; ideas that work for their pupils.
This post was written in 2016 after being inundated with replies; updating it for 2019 following another flurry of opinions. For the purposes of the post, I have defined the following:
- Myth: Lacking in any rigorous educational research
- Hearsay: Latest buzzwords and/or policy promoted by the government.
- Fad: Hearsay ideas rolled out as a by-product of school inspection that has no correlation to research.
1. Learning styles:
Research from both ends of the spectrum state that there is no such thing as ‘learning styles’ (Riener and Willingham 2010). This report (Coffield – 2004) examines 13 models of learning style and concludes that it matters fundamentally which model is chosen. There is a helpful summary by Harry Fletcher-Wood and questions taken from Bill Cerbin (2010), Five Ill-Conceived Ideas about Student Learning, as well as Learning styles from Dan Willingham.
The result? It’s a myth; although there is much research, the contention here is that there is no correlation to learning.
2. Lesson objectives:
The framing or copying of lesson objectives in still commonplace today; “All, most, some students will …” results in teachers recording two or three variations of their lesson aims onto lesson plans or whiteboards to meet the needs of observers. This approach produced varied results which have little or no academic research. Debra Kidd renounced this as a waste of time.
The result? It’s a myth. Lacking any rigorous educational research.
3. Progress in a lesson
… stipulated by Ofsted (around 2011) that students must show ‘rapid progress’, school leaders were interpreting the inspection handbook and teachers were expected to show ‘students making rapid progress’ in lesson observations. This soon translated into a requirement by school leaders to show progress of some kind in a 20-minute observation!
The result? Hearsay; rolled out as a by-product of school inspection.
4. Learning outcomes:
… once the lesson was taught, students were required to recap on what their learning outcome was. This was further proof for the observer and for inspectors that teaching and learning were synchronised in perfect harmony.
The result? It’s a myth.
5. APP (Assessing Pupil Progress):
When I first came across APP in 2008, an enthusiastic teacher demonstrated how the assessment was measured using a fancy piece of software. I looked on in horror at the countless sub-levels of data, entered into a database to record the knowledge and skills demonstrated by a single child. (APP) was developed for use in schools to enable them to apply Assessment for Learning (AfL) consistently across schools. No wonder Dylan Wiliam is frustrated!
The result? This is definitley another myth.
6. Chinese teaching:
The television series ‘Are Our Kids Tough Enough?‘ was entertainment and was never going to provide us with a true perspective. Despite the research, high-profile celebrities and politicians proclaiming the wonderful work of our Shanghai counterparts, at no point did anyone proclaim that in order to achieve these high-standards, teachers only teach two lessons a day. The promise of ‘maths teachers and Shanghai teaching methods showcased to UK teachers in [a school near you].’ I kid you not, they all appeared in my work ‘inbox’ on several occasions throughout 2014.
The result? Hearsay!
7. PLTS (Personal, Learning, Thinking Skills):
Consigned to the National Archives – that says it all really – PLTS provided a framework for describing the qualities and skills needed for success in learning and life. If only we knew the secret for adulthood, teaching and successful relationships too? Nice idea, but impossible to put a framework in place to determine the skills a child needs to become successful. Maybe now replaced by ‘character education’? In fact, one day we’ll just call it ‘teaching’!
The result? One more hearsay to add to the list!
8. Textbooks:
Nick Gibb is obsessed with textbooks being used more widely by teachers in the classroom, but it was advocated long-before the not-missed-at-all Elizabeth Truss was given her marching orders. She made a number of speeches in 2014 in which she advocated a return to the regular use of the textbook. The problem is, the knowledge-base of most subjects has now become so extensive, that it has become increasingly difficult for teachers to cram everything into the limited number of periods a week they have with each class, let alone from a textbook! You only need to take a closer look at the publishers and their relationships with those that promote them to find this ideology is all a little incestuous.
The result? This is political hearsay.
9. iPads:
I’ve yet to find myself working in a school that uses iPads extensively in all subjects with all students, but that’s not to say I don’t advocate technology in the classroom. It has a place, but it certainly should not replace the role of the teacher. Using iPads in the classroom is expensive and I have seen it work well, but I’ve also seen it lead students down the ‘garden-path’ and have seen teachers get frustrated with the technology and students to turn to ‘Google’ for the answers all-too-often. Show me the research from a challenging state school, please.
The result? The jury is still out …
10. Seating plans:
I have seen teachers sit students in rows or groups of tables (for collaboration) in all sorts of subjects. Maths, technology, art and English. Some are great, some not-so-much. Either way, whatever works for those teachers and their students is what’s best. It is the duty of colleagues observing/coaching to intervene if they believe the techniques a teacher is using in their classroom – even the seating plan – is detrimental to the teaching and learning of the class.
The result? Where is the evidence? A myth (for now)…
11. Zero-tolerance:
If a school promotes a ‘zero tolerance’ approach, how confident are these institutions in helping young people to learn from their mistakes? How do their permanent exclusion figures read? Every school should have a behaviour policy which promotes learning and aims to cull disruption or defiance. To promote that a school is tough on discipline and better than any other is in-line with ideologies promoted by those that look to commercialise education via the academies and free school movement. Every school wants good behaviour. The most reputable research organisations in England published research in June 2019: “There are no high-quality studies of ‘zero tolerance’ completed in English schools.”
The result? Political hearsay! Don’t fall for it…
12. Brain Gym:
The program has been criticised as pseudoscience, designed by Paul Dennison who worked as a public school teacher in the 1960s, researching more effective ways to help children and adults with learning difficulties. The studies themselves have received polemic feedback from supporters and critics. The consensus is Brain Gym activities are poorly designed and that the work is not supported by peer-reviewed research. When questioned, Dennison said that he “leaves the explanations to the experts.”
The result? Myth! It’s simply bad science…
13. Four-Part Lessons:
Including 3 and 7 parts or whatever number of parts you’ve been told! There is little or no evidence to suggest any suitable model works other than quality first teaching from the outset.
The result? Another fad which blights teacher autonomy in return for whole-school compliance.
14. Lollypop-stick questioning:
It is absolutely essential that you ask the correct question in the first place, and then use a mechanism to find a student to answer. Used by many teachers in their fast-track induction, lolly-sticks are a neat little trick to ensure that every child takes part in the lesson to appease observers. But, what are they learning and what is the teacher assessing by doing so? Overall, whatever mechanism you use to ask questions, it’s the quality of your question – who it is targeted to and why – and the quality of feedback that counts.
The result? It’s a myth – show me the research?
15. Teacher talk:
I once blogged about teacher-talk; traditional versus progressive methods, false dichotomies or otherwise, might make for an interesting debate when it’s underpinned by evidence, but in most classrooms, teachers do a bit of both. Put another way, children need facts but also need to develop the skills (procedural knowledge) to use those facts. We know that it is the quality of direct-instruction and teacher-clarity that has a significant effect on student progress. Provide instructions poorly, whether for a long or short period of time and you’ll leave your students with no clarity or direction. Over time, this is likely to have a detrimental effect on learning and long-term memory.
The result? Hearsay. Talk for as long as you want, as long as teachers check that students have made a change in their long-term memory…
16. Lesson planning:
Yes, believe it or not, teachers are still required to write detailed lesson plans (2-3 A4 pages) for every lesson and submit them to their line manager for lesson observations. Although the myth of writing detailed lesson plans is largely debunked, there are strong rumours that many primary schools still ask their teachers to submit weekly lesson plans to their headteachers. The result, teachers spend their entire Sundays writing weekly planning sheets to submit on a Monday morning for people who won’t be in the lesson!
The result? This could be a myth, hearsay and a fad all in one. Yet to find any research to suggest lesson planning leads to better outcomes. I’m going with school inspection and teacher-training-driven-science; it’s a fad.
17. Verbal feedback stamps:
Stamping or recording ‘VF’ in a student’s book to indicate that verbal feedback has taken place adds no value to learning. If the stamp is merely to serve as an indication to an observer when looking through students books, then those teachers have lost their way in the classroom and is undermining the value of a teacher’s work.
The result? One of the worst myths to appear in classrooms over the last decade.
18. Triple marking:
This idea was originally designed to reduce marking and make more of key assessments and may have stemmed from some senior leaders interpretation of the School Inspection Handbook. After posting this blog, the origins of the idea have come to light and have been clarified by the person who claims to have promoted the original idea which has been lost in translation. Thankfully, OfSTED has started to publish their own misconceptions and they could not be clearer.
The result? Started off as conference hearsay, and slowly has become a fad due to inspection preferences. Ten years later, we are still unpicking the damage.
19. Starters, Middles, Plenaries:
We’ve all created them, acted them out for observations and inspections when in reality we’d rather just get on with teaching! The research is now clear, a quick review of learning that has gone before (retrieval practice) is the perfect medicine for long-term memory.
The result? Myth. Show me the research please … but consider a retrieval practice quiz or lesson review.
The following will be added shortly:
- The purple pen of progress
- Mocksteds
- Work scrutinies
- Mindfulness
- Praise
- Classroom displays
- A ‘knowledge-rich’ curriculum
- Growth mindset
- Knowledge organisers
- One-to-one devices
- Lollipop sticks
- Phonics
- Performance-related pay
- Inspections grading
- Lesson observation grading
- Genius hour
We may discover in the next few years, the lesson gradings, book looks and even performance related-pay are the next set of fads and gimmicks.
What’s missing? Write your answers in the comments below…
Very entertaining – where do you find the time Ross?
Somebody once said the very best lies contain a grain of truth. Perhaps it is the same with what you have termed “educational fads”. What I have found is that people become enthusiastic (evangelical even) for what works for them. This success is regulated by the where, when and with whom variables and so is not always transferable – no matter how well it is structured, regulated or observed. So I prefer to keep an open mind and use what works so long as it does not involve labeling (something else education is seduced by).
Whilst I agree with many of your list I do feel there is more to be made of #7 (remember the grain of truth). Maybe its how it is used or applied, not unlike AfL. My experience as a teacher and researcher suggests there are some elements that are common to successful learners and that as learners we can develop them. At the very least as teachers we need to discuss them with learners and challenge the self beliefs that limit our learning experiences and successes.
As for the next fad – “Growth Mindset”?
Hi Kevin,
I’ve been thinking about this blog for a while and the tweet (within the blog) was to gather a consensus of ideas to help format the blog. I’m hoping to raise awareness that we need a more evidence-based profession before ideas are rolled out. We’ve all been susceptible to fads etc. Worse, some of us may be responsible for some of them.
Oh my…. How many of these made me groan inwardly when reading them!
I spent many hours of ‘CPD’ being told these were the future and many frustrating hours attempting to implement them!
Makes me ‘sad too’, to think how much INSET I also had to sit/listen for some of those listed.
Good morning Ross. It appears that we both have been impacted by Hattie and Willingham’s research. I agree with much of what you said in the article, but having said that, what pedagogies do work to increase student learning and lead them to higher order thinking skills?
Hi Tim – thanks for the comment. Are you asking me to think of some current practise that improves high-order thinking? If so, quality of verbal/written feedback – using Pose Pause Pounce Bounce as a mechanism – for framing and targeting questions for example. The key here, is asking the right questions, to the right students of course. Much more to say; please clarify.
hard work?
Don’t agree with your label for text books and sitting in rows.
That’s okay Naureen. It’s just a shame that some schools only allow their governors to visit lessons in-between changeover of lessons and often to classrooms that have students sitting in rows working from textbooks. This is ‘okay’, and would often re-affirm governors’ personal memories of school and what works. When governors visit schools, it is important to showcase the real picture and ensure that the governing body sees all aspects of school life. I do think textbooks are important, I just disagree with Gibb and the incestuous relationship with Pearson and the examination boards – hence the label ‘fad’. As for rows, I have my kids sitting in rows every week and in many lessons I observe, teachers do too. To promote it as the only option for all classrooms, is a ‘fad’ in my opinion.
Thanks, Ross. Governors should try and make sure that when they visit their schools they get as full and as complete a picture of what’s happening there as they can. My comment above was as an educator, not a governor. As an educator I love text books and I would have my students sitting in rows. As a governor it’s not for me to tell the teacher what to do. As a governor I need to know that whatever the school does has a positive impact on teaching and learning.
Hi Ross – Just to give you a little background information. I’m taking an ELearning course right now and we have been discussing pedagogical theories like social constructivism. I have spent time on my own reading Hattie’s books Visible learning the science of how we learn, Visible learning for teachers, and Visible learning for literacy. I am very intrigued by Hattie’s explanations about how the brain processes information.
In this post you talk about fads, myths, and heresies in education. What would you say are some solid EDUCATIONAL TRUTHS that teachers should understand. Things that are not myths, fads, or heresy?
Hi Tim – sorry for slow response – it’s been a very busy last week at school.
Social constructivism – a good example of impact on progress is here: Collaborative Learning.
To answer your question would be another blog in itself – even a book! I guess a quick response would be here – What Works? – which details how teachers share the research/work they are completing in their own school with their own students. No fads/myths. Just hard work and commitment to making things better for their kids. Not influenced by politicians or school leaders. Personal projects and personal interest.
I was disappointed not to find the dancing disco finger & the other non-evidence based movements of “fill up my bank account like champion” & TeachFirst darling Doug Lemov
May we use your article in our school community site please. http://Www.schoolcommunitysa.ci.zs. will reuse with full credits and links if approved. Thank you. Content@schoolcommunitysa.co.za
No problem. Please share the link when published.
Thank you this entertaining walk through memory lane! This only serves to emphasise the need for teachers-as-researchers. I was fortunate that in the mid-1980s that I undertook a classroom-based quasi-experiment on teaching styles and this proved foundational throughout my career (retired from classroom teaching a couple of years ago – now in ‘semi-retirement’ in teacher development in higher education!)
Practitioner enquiry vis-à-vis Scotland’s Teaching Standards is a good way to go. Also, the new Chartered College of Teaching is proposing to bring about Chartered Teacher status – this will help enable teachers become reflective professionals who seek and operate from a growing base of evidence.
Given that teaching and learning are primarily moral activities it is necessary for teachers to develop ‘practical wisdom’ in order that, in any given situation, we have a repertoire of strategies from which to draw upon.
Tony
Like the idea of ‘practical wisdom’. There’s a blog in that somewhere. Thanks for the comment Tony. The sooner the profession becomes evidenced-led in all that we do, the better for teacher-workload and accountability. Thoughts?
Nice to read something that confirms you’re not ‘anti team’. I’ve always had huge issues with most of the above and I’m a firm believer of having a good research base before trying some new fad. How about we focus on promoting teaching styles that demonstrate excellent clarity and seriously motivate naturally inquisitive minds to engage!
Now that’s a good idea. It’s a shame to think that politics may be to blame for half of these fads.
What about the more general assumptions? You spend more time teaching Maths, English and Science therefore children learn more. Yet History, Geography, Citizenship all get limited time and get great results. Efficency is key, not more time equals more learning.
Glad to see educators addressing fads. Great to see the questioning of learning styles which are still rampant in Australian schools and the use of technology. I’d certainly query some on this list, though. Teacher-directed learning has been shown, through research/evidence, to be far more effective than discovery or inquiry based learning. Since you are reading “Visible Learning” I wonder why you call teacher-directed learning a fad?
Also, there may not be any “real” research in some of these area however I wonder why you’d put text books on the list. A fairly comprehensive book written by experts in the field is surely more beneficial than teacher made lessons on the run. In fact if we look at countries/states etc that use textbooks, and the systematic approach they encourage, they do seem to get good results rather than an ad hoc approach.
I also think rows of students is preferable. It makes sense that this configuration would lead to less disruption and staying on task. And I would also point out that, according to my optometrist sitting in groups not facing the front can lead to headaches/eye strain and muscle strain. Do you have any evidence these are fads? I think I’d call them a preference used by teachers who find they work better than more progressive ideas. Perhaps that is the real reason you oppose them.
I believe direct instruction has a place in every classroom. Although the quality of language used is essential, and not every teacher possesses strong knowledge of their subject!
I wouldn’t call it a fad – just fitting into the definitions/parameters I set myself, although the blame may lie with government who push particular ideologies instead of leaving the profession to get on with it ourselves. It would most likely lead to less blame and ‘labelling’ of such techniques.
All teachers should preferably have sound knowledge of their subject. I’m not sure of your point. This point doesn’t impact on teacher-led class rooms anymore than more progressive-type class rooms.
Teacher-led is definitely not a fad – ie the research suggests it is the best way to teach & learn – and it is disturbing to see it on your list. As for some teachers not having a sound knowledge of subjects, the use of text books would definitely curtail some of the problems associated with the deficit.
From supporting colleagues, it is clear that some teachers are a) still developing their subject knowledge b) are not a subject specialist and c) behind curriculum reform. This is best address with exam board training, belonging to a subject association and having a first degree in their subject. In my 20 years of working in secondary schools, at least 10% of colleagues I have worked with have some of the training needs lacking in their repertoire. This is of course individual and school-specific to my own experiences …
If teachers lack the subject knowledge, tis impacts on the quality of their direct instruction. That was my point. And if this is hindered, is impacts on the learning of students in a teacher-led or a student-led classroom. Text books are of course useful, but not the only solution. A teacher taking control of their own professional development has more impact than any other resource.
I think academics in the teaching field tend to be the ones who push certain rubbish ideologies onto teachers.
Academics who train teachers?
So funny.
Must send to SLT . . . .
In one observation, my “areas for improvement” included the fact that I didn’t use lolly sticks to randomly choose children to answer questions. It was expected in every lesson despite me asking why! In future lessons, to play the game I would pick a lolly stick and ignore the name and just ask the child I wanted to ask anyway. Ridiculous.
i was always being told to use mini white boards as my area for improvement by someone who only ever got the mini whiteboards out whenever they were being observed.
What’s missing?
Success Criteria
Response to Marking
Guided Writing
Guided Reading
AFL
Learning Walks
Working Walls
Makaton
Circle Time
Differentiation
I’d agree with Learning Walks
Then add that: ECAT, ERIC, talk for writing, creative curriculm, the list goes on.
My daughter used Makaton with drastically learning-impaired adults, who couldn’t even talk. Presumably this is what it was created for and therefore has no place elsewhere.
Love this… Problem is teachers are trying to do it all, all at the same time. We need to stop allowing ‘I think this would be great’ statements in education and invest in purposeful research so we can use ‘I know this will work’ instead.
Dialogic marking, and Growth bloody mindset, oh and marking but not grading was the other fad we had. Three colour pens, for peer, self and teacher marking
Bloody growth mindset doesn’t work if you do it wrong. If your classroom lives and breathes it, if your children have good models of it – it does work and has a big impact as proven in studies. Are you seriously suggesting that not encouraging a growth mindset in children is a good idea?
Missing: Daily mile, mindfulness
Do we really need all these bells, whistles and hoops to leap through (and paperwork to show evidence of them, too) to get ideas and skills across? Some work; some don’t, but somehow they miss the point of the student coming first. What was Socrates, some kind of incompetent hack?
I spent 36 happy years teaching…..but my only worry was that I’d one day be caught and hanged for blatantly ignoring each and every new directive from the Head about how to teach.
It makes me smile now when I think of my ‘lesson plans’ which amounted to three sentences per lesson, usually the same sentences for each class each day. I knew and loved my subject passionately. I knew about appropriate adaptation, continuation and development. I also knew my students and how they functioned as a group.
My planning book was never scrutinised. If I knew I was being observed I’d write it out in larger letters so it looked like more. If pressed I would even print it out. I was never challenged on my planning or teaching, in fact I finished my career with thirteen consecutive ‘Outstandings’ from various HMI’s, Ofsted inspectors and Heads.
My only rule was ‘Be Kind’.
My only aim was ‘Know more when you leave this lesson that you did when you came in’.
My only expectation was that no student’s behaviour EVER prevented others from learning.
My only resources were my Scouse sense of humour and total respect for each young person.
My only habit was consistency-without exception-consistency!
No gimmicks, fads or tricks.
Most lessons were good. Some were amazing. Some were less successful, but all were enjoyable for me and them.
As an AST I used to explain my approach to other staff like this: If you go to the Dr with an illness, you have to trust his professional experience. If he had to refer to a plan, notes or books every consultation, you would lose confidence in him. You want his full attention, not him reading a formula of how to deal with you or treat you.
So why would an experienced, professional teacher need to have a plan of what to do in every lesson?
Why tell them how to organise their classes? Some young teachers may need guidance as beginners, but most soon find their own style, approach and methods of delivery which suits them and their many classes……
Eventually, after years of being told how to teach by people who had never been teachers, judged by strangers who were visiting for a day or observed by senior staff who were feverishly ticking boxes to keep the school open, I decided to retire. I had just been issued with the third lesson planning framework in less than two weeks.
Two years after retirement I read that Aristotle once said ‘We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence therefore is not an act, but a habit’.
This made me smile too…….
Totally agree with you! Towards the end , to please the powers that be, I incorporated all 20 if not more into 1 lessson!!!
Great to read a common sense approach to teaching. Keep it simple, know your subject, know your students and enjoy what you are doing. Follow three simple rules and it goes a long way to being a great teacher. Not an outstanding teacher because, for me, an ‘outstanding’ means something else.
Slightly! more than 20 years ago, 24th July 1959 to be precise, I left school as a 15 year old.
I had no qualifications but was lucky enough to start work a month later as a shop lad in an aircraft factory, where they helped me to receive an education at the local technical college.
At school I failed the +11, was taught no grammar, and not much maths:
In industry I was allowed time off to attend college, and eventually became an
Associate Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society.
I feel very lucky that I managed to find a sympathetic employer, but I also still feel frustrated that my potential was not developed while still at school.
Whether this was due to teaching fads, no comprehensives, or just me being thick, it does show that the consequences linger for many years.
Looking at the list of teaching incentives over the last 20 years seems to show that there has always been some sort of interference, and there probably always will be, so please try your best to work within the system and do your best for each pupil because I don’t think they have now the same back-up alternatives that I had.
Please could we add ‘Next Step’ Marking to the list!
An excellent summary! Out of interest, how do we suggest a teacher deals with a manager(s) who routinely expect to see one or more of these myths in lesson observations?
Email them this blog 🙂
Do you remember ALS (lots of resourcing for my poor TA God bless) Booster Classes, Super Teachers and the Gifted and Talented Register ? Oh, and those big Numeracy and Literacy folders with their vocab, grammar and spelling lists. Letts orange books with big posters. Big books ! Actually, I like big books, but I wouldn’t sit a whole class of 32 Year 6s around one like once advised. And my fav – the Literacy Hour Clock to help us poor souls sub divide the hour into absolutely distinct segments, let alone teach thematically (that’s how we used to do it dear in the 70s and 80s). Ahhh, how silly.
I do remember the literacy/numeracy folders!
The flipped classroom.
They’ve wasted their time listening to Education Ministers who have little or no experience in the classroom and have no idea what actually works for children and young people.
They’ve wasted their time changing teaching methods and marking schemes unnecessarily and trying to force children to learn things and reach standards they’re not ready for developmentally.
They’ve wasted their time listening to ‘new ideas’ that were actually tried and failed under different titles twenty years ago.
They’re now wasting their time implementing expensive schemes that involve the very basic and very old notion of simply SHARING GOOD PRACTICE.
Now Heads of Academies can do whatever they like…..pay themselves ridiculous salaries and still classroom standards aren’t improving fast enough….
And we wonder why we go around in circles…….
Disagree. I tried it with Year 12s last year and found it very motivational – they had more reason to do the work and I could tell who had and hadn’t. I could then let those who needed stretching go off and deal with harder things while I dealt with those who had tried and failed to pick the topic up or who hadn’t tried. Those who didn’t try knew that I knew and got short shrift for it.
That said, I wouldn’t do it with every class/year/student.
‘Two stars and a wish’ – and this in a secondary school! Good grief…
don’t! i am just finding that teenagers are becoming less mature people due to all this stuff.
Add in “pupil voice” – the management asking the pupils whether their teachers do any/all of the above. And then hounding out any teacher who dares to be different.
oh yeah, the teacher who dares to do things different. These are a threat! a threat to staff and students! generally doing things a little differently in some of the schools i have worked at means NOT giving all the answers to students and expecting them to think a little.
I actually enjoy the popsicle stick method. It has worked for me because as soon as the kids see me grab for them, they are on high alert, they pay close attention, and they are ready to answer any question. They don’t want to look like a fool in front of their peers when I pull their stick and they don’t have any idea what I am asking them. Plus, it gives the quiet kids a voice!
Can’t you just ask questions seemingly at random?
it’s really shocking and in fact frightening that in a profession where we are meant to be showing others how to read carefully and observe and interpret meaning and listen carefully … not to mention encourage creativity and original thought….. so many people in the profession do not pay close attention to what they hear and see. I would be a very rich woman if i had a pound for every time I heard someone say “ofsted want to see” “so the inspectors can see quickly” and the rest. being told to date my marking. One time a school i was at had had ofsted in. I remember reading the report and it said in a part something to the effect of them not being concerned about the format of the planning just that they needed to know it was effective. Anyway, ofsted came for their check up visit after this one , they’d announced their visit and we were all hauled to the haul for the briefing. The briefing that included the unveiling of a brand new, incredibly complicated lesson plan proforma that we were allt o use for the next couple of days. Yes, this profporma had plenty of boxes for however many parts of a lesson and progress checking parts, or mini plenaries. Jeez, i remember the day before all the checking of plans and me just being not quite sure what they wanted me to do to show this elusive progress. I don’t think the people directing it knew what it was about either but they just needed to tell me it was wrong . wow. what a waste of time. I’m very disillusioned with the whole thing. altho i did reach the stage where i switch ears off when i hear ” for ofsted” coz i know i don’t teach for ofsted, i teach to pay my bills and see others enjoy my subject.
A super post! I will defend lolly sticks, though – not for higher-order questioning, and not for every single time I call on students, but for key word review, sharing out after think-pair-share, grouping, etc. I will also draw a name and hand the jar to that student, who will in turn lead the rest of the class through a correction exercise. They are one of those simple tools that has really “stuck” for me in a positive, effective way.
I want to defend lollipop sticks too. Though I have a set of cards with their pictures on. I found it’s allowed my quiet students time to have a voice. I only use it after think, pair, share so all the students have the opportunity to practice and have a partner if they need help. They also know it’s coming and I don’t use it all the time and I use it in conjunction with more targeted questioning. I can see it’s effectiveness as a strategy in my setting where the students need to practice speaking in English. It’s like anything -use it with thought at a time where you feel it’s appropriate. Right here , right now its usecil and works with my class. Adopting anything blindly is wrong, but so can be discounting anything blindly. It has to work for your kids and you in your setting.
Absolutely useful in this case. The blog ideas were stirred from such ideas being imposed by ABC for XYZ monitoring procedures and preferences.
What are your thoughts on requiring students to complete an action I,,ediately as a result of written feedback?
Surely we want pupils to act on all feedback, whether it is written or spoken?
Hi Ross – You should link up with https://debunker.club/ if you have not already – a lot of crossover.
I think a lot these things are promoted to generate money for consultants, publishers etc. Also the increased speed of change now is quite a pain. Methods come in and out of favour and everyone gets swept up with taking on the new and binning the old. Repackaging old ideas and creating gimmicks keeps people in business.