“Teaching is easy, anyone can do it.”
If you type the word myth and teaching, schools, or education into a search engine, you will find a broad range of web-pages offering ideas for teaching myths and legends. Used with care and adapted to the needs of a group, they can be very valuable. Many use the word myth as a strap-line for debunking some aspect of policy, while others offer the range of regular chestnuts that budding teachers are told before they start in the classroom, such as: Don’t smile ‘till Christmas; Good teachers are born, not made; Teachers should know the answers; The only way to find out what your pupils really know is by testing them; Pick on a pupil and give them a good dressing down and the others won’t give you any trouble after that; All lessons should be fun. There are obviously many others, all of which have a pedigree, if nothing else from the experience of the person relating the story. Some of these myths are prefaced with “In my day…”, but then all teachers talk from their experience. This opinion is likely to be no exception to that.
Education sometimes gets bogged down in the discussion of minutiae, but these areas are often the barriers to progress, as discussion is sidetracked. Today there are potential myths being created. Satisfactory is no longer satisfactory, but in need of improvement and outstanding has to be only that, not good, or very good or nearly. Where once there were five grades which could be used, these have been pared to four. Whereas satisfactory was a middle grade, with improvement implicit in lower grades and greater satisfaction in higher ones, using a four point scale is allowing an argument to be made that the two higher grades, of good and outstanding are the only ones that are valued. Many schools are in situations where, whatever they do and even if they provide outstanding quality experiences, across all abilities, they still only achieve at a satisfactory overall level, because their children start from a lower base, so the teaching can only be judged as satisfactory, from now on perhaps to be judged in need of improvement. Where is the incentive to do better, if the best efforts, often outstanding, differentiated and challenging, have to be judged as satisfactory, because at the end of the key stage, the scores in maths and English are less than expected?
The Independent online on 2nd August 2011 offered the following critique of the recent end of KS2 tests, “The statistics show that 67% of 11-year-olds in England achieved at least a Level 4, the standard expected of the age group, in these three subjects in their national curriculum tests. This is up from 64% last year, a 3% rise.
But it still means that 33% of youngsters missed out.” (my bold type)
What is the significant difference between a level 3a and a 4c, as we now work in sub-levels for assessment? Realistically, if a child manages to achieve one mark more than is required for level 4, they are classed as a success, while a child getting one mark less than required is a failure, or is “missing out”. This difference is not significant, but the impact may well be.
Schools are dynamic institutions, filled with teachers who go to work each day to do a good job. I have not met any who were happy just to do a satisfactory job and never any who aspired to do a poor one.
What limits the growth of a school? It can be the collective experience of the staff, including the head and other managers, who cannot explain clearly what is expected. Clarity of vision, articulated throughout an organisation provides a corporate direction. Once established, and recorded and visible, this is the ethos to which future staff are introduced. Staff turnover can destroy this collective view very rapidly and we often work within very tight time scales. Time seems to pass more quickly in schools. Half terms pass rapidly.
Learning and teaching are the bedrock of all schools. The simple view of T&L is teacher talks, children listen and learn. However, every child is different, so catering for their different needs requires a more complex organisation. Differentiation has been much discussed over time, but in itself can create organisational complications which allow setting and streaming to have status. Within this arrangement, it is common for one activity to be given to all the children. What’s the point of being bright in this situation? Are the division points equally challenged?
Myth or reality? All children are created equal, so we can expect them all to come out of Secondary School at the same levels 5 A*-C grades as a minimum, including specific subjects. I know that we have been raising the aspiration of the teaching profession for many years, rightly so, but, are we in danger of putting in place unrealistic aspirations, which in turn become expectations, with any child falling below the determined line classed as a failure? To barely scrape or just miss a C grade may have taken a great deal of dedicated, challenging and engaging work by a range of committed staff and significant effort from a child not born with natural talents, nor in some cases, English as their first language. A child easily achieving an A* might just be fortunate in their genes, heritage and background. Effort and value added at individual level is not judged. Maybe it should be, if we are to concentrate on the needs of all children and not see dips in the learning dynamics of significant groups. Able children can lift the performance of others, but only if they are given appropriate challenge and possibly different working opportunities, Just getting work completed quicker that others does not, in itself provide an incentive, as others will simply think that is the norm.
Children are levelled and tracked throughout their school lives. If there is a group of, say 3b, children, who seemingly are at the same level, is this a reality? Are the discrete needs identical? How do they know how to improve if they are given identical challenges and in many cases identical learning targets? Is this a case of data rich but information poor? Should we be tracking at the level of capability, rather than simply relying on statistics? Should we only be celebrating the added value provided by a school, rather than the absolute scoring in league tables? Should we seek to value formative assessment above all others, especially summative assessment, which can become purely testing, rather than diagnosis and development?
The energy for learning comes from children. The teacher’s job is to excite and enthuse, to offer interesting and engaging experiences within which children can explore and develop for themselves the visual images from which they are able to manipulate ideas in more abstract ways. Given the availability of technologies available to support the teacher role, it is far easier to incorporate image, video and music into lessons. Interactive use of cameras can record activity and create instant storyboards from which children can recall, retell and rehearse their activity, before writing a draft.
Ofsted is full of outstanding teachers and head teachers, capable of delivering regular outstanding lessons in difficult situations, ensuring that the needs of each and every child has been addressed, in an enthusiastic and engaging way. They are all capable of running outstanding schools and offering bespoke advice to schools and individual staff who may be in need of some improvement, based on their detailed analyses of the school’s and the individual’s needs. They would never, ever provide a satisfactory lesson, even if asked to do one at five minutes’ notice.
Or is that a new myth?
