Time – the most precious of resources.

Use it wisely.

Time is one of the most precious commodities we have. In each day we get 24 hours and how we spend much of it is determined by need. We sleep, we eat, we work. Therefore, when the opportunity comes around for educators to spend time together, as a department, it is critical that we use this time wisely.

I have written before about using Teams and Emails effectively to reduce the burden of administrative tasks. For me, such tasks have no place in a curriculum team meeting. This precious time should be used to:

• Develop teachers.
• Develop curriculum.

In my school we have directed departmental time called “CPDS” (Curriculum Planning Developmental Sessions). It is in these sessions my team and I work on the application of the curriculum (I refuse to say “implementation”!) both in terms of teacher actions and resourcing. Determining how to use these sessions is something I consider very carefully, and I base it on data.

How do you know?

I am incredibly careful about what can be inferred from processes such as “book-looks.” Sometimes they mask what the pupil knows and does not yet know. However, with a little care and experience, these actions can yield interesting lines of inquiry for departmental improvement. Furthermore, if you as a leader spend time looking at book’s and popping into lessons then do not act, what was the point?! You could argue a step further and say you are not serving your team by providing feedback and development that will move your staff and your pupils on.

Example 1 – Explanations.

A good explanation is worth its weight in gold. We provide our team with resources so that they may use some of their planning time thinking about and refining their explanations. Sounds good right?

Last term during my usual stroll around the department, I noticed staff still resisting to use the visualizer for certain types of explanations. This suggested one or more of the following:

• Use of the visualizer is not yet habitual.
• Staff may not yet be as confident with explanations.
• Staff may be stuck in old habits.
• They had a bad morning and have not got themselves set (it happens)

So, I decided to use our next CPDS session to target this in a supportive way. Beforehand we happened to have a shortened academic meeting of 30 minutes (usually used for checking in on day-to-day issues). Within that time my Lead Practitioner provided an example of a high-quality explanation over the visualizer. This involved him labelling the heart and questioning the “students” (the staff) via mini whiteboards. Once the explanation was completed the department engaged in an open-ended discussion about how this may benefit their upcoming lessons. It was at this stage I dropped the following bombshell:

“Next week in our CPDS session, each of you will provide a similar explanation via the visualizer to the rest of the team. You may choose your own topic which must be sent over to me via teams in the next couple of days.”

The following week I set up a random running order and my team set to it! (Me included of course, I do not ask of my team what I am not prepared to do myself.) We spent between 5-10 minutes in the next CPDS session each pretending to be a teacher in the classroom whilst others participated as students. After each explanation, we engaged in a short bit of feedback. Benefits of this session included:

• The staff witnessed seven examples from across the curriculum, including electrolysis, latent heat, resistance in a wire, and food webs – great subject knowledge enhancement!
• All staff provided feedback and so were thinking critically about the process of explanation.
• Staff left with innovative ideas for teaching. Indeed, I have been teaching for 16 years and had not considered explaining Latent Heat the way my colleague of just two years did! I used her explanation in my lesson the very next day and was buzzing about it!
• Staff realised they are not alone! We have a range of experiences, but we work together in our development of the department.
• Visualizers are now being used more frequently when I tour my department!

This is still a work in progress however this was one of the most powerful hours of curriculum development we have done to date.

Example 2 – Key Questions.

Something else that had been bothering me was the consistency of language being used in KS3. We have done an incredible amount of work over the past few years developing our resources, and schemes of learning however We did not yet have an agreed set of centralised standards for the answers to certain questions, such as:

• What is an atom?
• What is friction?

Its not that staff were giving the pupils incorrect information, but we did not have the uniformity which would ultimately strengthen the curriculum and the confidence of our pupils.

So, in the next CPDS session I opened with a mini-whiteboard task. I asked my team the following (notice the front loading…):

“By writing an answer on your whiteboard, without conferring, define what an atom is.”

Every member of my team gave me differing responses, but all “correct.” Two such examples were:

“The smallest part of a substance”

“Made from protons, electrons, and neutrons.”

You could see several jaws hit the floor in that moment. The point had been well made and the buy-in was well and truly secured for the next steps. To an 11 year old year 7 moving through year groups, encountering different science teachers, confusion could emerge.

So, what did we do?

We agreed to write a set of “Key Questions” in our subject specialist teams (this is totally core questions btw). We used a KS3 Retrieval Roulette as a starting point and edited the sheet to suit our curriculum sequence and topic names. This took place over the next couple of CPDS sessions and Y11/Y13 gained time. The result? 658 questions and answers that we now use for:

• Cover work
• Review lessons
• Home learning (sent home on the back of their knowledge organisers)

Most importantly we now teach with more consistency. We encourage pupils to express their responses as individuals however we have an agreed core set of responses we teach in the first instance. (WTTEO is very much rewarded!) Our next step, following a highly successful introduction, is to develop these for KS4 this term.

Do not waste what time you have.

Whether you are a Head of Science or a leader in another area, time is a resource we cannot reuse, cannot produce, and therefore we must not waste. On the backdrop of what is becoming and increasingly challenging profession we have a duty of care to our staff and to our pupils to ensure that the time we get to meet, is used as effectively as possible.

Hopefully, this post has provided food for thought! Feel free to drop me a comment below or catch up with me over on social media.

Thanks for dropping by.

Threads – @djgteaching

X – @djgteaching

Staff development – A hierarchy of need.

Abraham Maslow, an American psychologist, first published his paper on the Hierarchy of Needs of human beings in 1943. This work suggests that we can only tend to a higher level of needs once a lower level of need has been satisfied (1). For example, he suggested that we cannot expect someone to worry about friendship groups if they have yet to secure adequate food and shelter. Whilst his original works never contained any kind of visualization, they have since been represented many times in the form of a pyramid (and we know that all good things come in the form of pyramids).

Figure 1 – Visual representation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. (2)

I have been a Head of Subject / Faculty for nearly a decade. In that time I have observed 100’s of lessons, and popped-in to countless others. Over the years the feedback I have given staff has been wide and varied but will often fall into certain categories akin to a hierarchy of need. More recently I have been convinced that actually, this hierarchy should be considered when formulating any kind of feedback to a colleague. (Some feedback and subsequent actions must be prioritized.) Allow me to elaborate whilst framing this in a rather crude Maslovian way.

“Level 1” Physiological needs – The room.

Before even thinking about questioning, resourcing, behaviour etc. a certain set of critical and logistical issues need to be considered:

1 – How are the desks arranged? In my view, rows are best. Further to this, a set of strategically placed gaps to allow more fluid teacher circulation around the room would be ideal. I also consider the filed of view with regards to my pupils. In my own classroom (lab) I turn the desks at the ends of each row in slightly so to increase the field of view for those pupils.

Figure 2 – Desk arrangement in my classroom

2 – Seating plan. I am completely unapologetic and non-negotiable when it comes to seating plans. I check the pupil passport (this is what we call our pupil specific SEND plans in my school) and ensure those pupils who need to be sat near the front, back, edges etc., are well positioned for their needs. I then will seat pupils girl / boy as far as possible (again, being sensitive not to assume gender), before checking my plans with a previous teacher or head of year. I fully expect my teaching staff to do the same for Y7-11 and will look for this as part of my initial checks in lessons.

“Level 2” Safety needs – Routines.

Most schools these days have a set routine for lesson starts and lesson ends (you can read more on my views on the former here). Once the configuration of a room and its inhabitants are secured, the next step is checking that routines are adhered to. This may seem draconian to some, I would argue they are critical for our teachers and pupils alike. From lining up at the door, to checking for equipment and answering the register politely, routines are everything in terms of establishing the right conditions for positive behavior for learning.

Now Maslow never claimed that each level of need acts distinctly and alone, and I do not claim that to be true here either in terms of lessons. He did say that a level will “dominate” (1) in the thinking of an individual. Likewise certain themes for lesson feedback should dominate in order to have the greatest impact on the individual moving forwards. The brain is a complex organ with many things going on at once and the same can be said of a lesson in any subject! Below is an alternative graphic of Maslow’s Hierarchy which better captures the overlapping nature of the needs.

Figure 3 – Alternative representation by Guttman (3)

“Level 3” Love and Belonging – Behaviour.

I think it is rather apt that the 3rd level of our tour of lesson feedback ties looking at behaviour management to ‘Love and Belonging’. It is my view that behaviour management is the single most critical component of effective teaching practice in many schools in the UK, so getting it right is something all staff should be supported on. These are the main areas I look for:

1. Use of voice / words. A teacher’s voice is one of their most powerful weapons. A calm, clear, assertive voice can often offset many problems before they occur. I believe all staff should record their own voice in lesson at least once and reflect on the playback (be mindful of your safeguarding protocols here – seek guidance from your school). As well as being clear, calm, and assertive, I am always keen to hear how economical staff are with their words. Are their instructions clear and to the point? Or do they result in a raft of questions and/or an off task behaviour? (Adam Boxer wrote a cracker on this here.) In my department we have done a lot of work this year on FLMOP (Front Load Means of Participation – for more on this check this post out) which has helped my staff immensely (with thanks to my fabulous Lead Practitioner, Michael Seddon). So much so that we are now all “FLMOP-ing” our instructions when we deliver staff CPL! How we use our words is as important as how we use our voice.
2. Position and circulation. Pastore’s Perch and the 3:30:30 rule are fantastic strategies / frameworks for positioning and circulation (for more on this check this post from Fahim Rahman).
3. Calm and consistent application of policy. In my school we have what is a quite typical level system. The pupils recive some sort of verbal or non-verbal reminder of their behaviour, prior to a formal warning and then sanctions. Our staff are advised to calmly indicate to the pupils which stage they are at. A clear delivery of these stages is far more effective than a “right that’s it, that’s your warning!” from an unsettled teacher.
4. Thank you. Whether is “killing it with kindness” or modelling what we expect to see. Staff will, in my experience, get further with the pupils if they behave in a way that is respectful.

“Level 4” – Esteem – Resourcing and Exposition.

Ok so the room is well laid out, the routines are strong, behaviour is will managed. Now we can focus on feeding back on more nuanced and subject specific aspects of lessons. These can be almost infinite in how they present themselves so here I will briefly touch upon 4 aspects of resourcing and exposition that I feel can effectively move staff on in their development.

• Visualizer. It is amazing that in this day and age staff will still turn their back to the class to give an explanation. A graphics tablet or visualizer allows the teacher to provide said explanation without the need to turn their backs. It also provides more opportunities for engagement with the pupils via questioning and opportunities for metacognition (an example of my use of the visualizer can be read here).
• PowerPoints. These are not everybody’s cup of tea but, in my view, they still serve a valuable purpose. In my department we have many staff still in the early stages of their careers and also teaching out of specialism. So having a bank of resources, created and stored centrally, allows that member of staff think about their explanations during their PPA rather than creating another resource.
• Preparing questions. It is apparent when a teacher has thought carefully about a line of questioning and also when it has been done on the fly. The latter isn’t always a bad thing, I want to see innovation, creativity, and bravery in my teaching staff. However the former always trumps all. Planning for a lesson should include careful thought into what questions the teacher wishes to task the pupils. Getting the pupils to think harder, for longer and on the correct topics, is a skill teachers should prioritize.
• Scaffolds. Has the teacher planned the right levels of support for the lesson. Do some pupils require a structure strip to guide some extended writing? Was the practical delivered in the correct manner? e.g. Slow Practical or integrated instructions? (Read more on my views on successful practical work here.)

“Level 5” Self-Actualization – Enhancing practice.

So the teacher has the room set up prefect, the lesson is well resourced, behaviour is under control (or at least handled skillfully), and the routines are flying! Now we can focus our feedback on two areas. Questioning and Assessment.

I am completely obsessed with mini-whiteboards (MWB’s). I speak of my use of them in my lessons in a more extended post here should you wish to read it (I know I have linked a lot in this post already!) Needless to say there is so much you can do with MWB’s to enhance questioning, assessment, manage behaviour, avoid pupil’s opting out, and drive up energy levels in the classroom. I have yet to see a lesson in which I haven’t thought “oh, if they had just used MWB’s here…” However if the behaviour is not right, or other routines are not yet strong, feeding back on MWB’s could be folly.

Questioning is incredibly difficult to master. There is sooooo much written in terms of techniques, frequency, and question types, that it could be it’s very own blogpost. However, much like MWB’s, if the other aspects of a lesson require tweaking, it is worthwhile feeding back on those areas and supporting the teacher in those improvements prior to focusing on questioning. Wait time, Cold-call, and Right-is-right, all have an aspect of behaviour management integrated into them, so introducing them at one of the other “levels” could prove useful. In my experience it is worth considering waiting until other aspects of a teachers craft have been secured. (i.e. worry about “cold-call” when you are successfully perching and entry/exit routines are strong!)

Closing comments.

I highly doubt that when Abraham Maslow published his hierarchy in the 1940’s, that he would have even dreamed a lowly Physics teacher from Northern England would be using it to frame the important aspects of lesson feedback in secondary schools! But here I am!

In truth, these levels of feedback are a blur, and we cannot ignore one for the sake of the other. But if the recipient of the feedback is likely to “dominate” their thoughts onto one area, then there is most definitely value is considering carefully which aspect we choose to feedback on first.

Finally I wish to acknowledge my wonderful colleague Graham Warner. It is my almost daily dialogue with him that has inspired this post. Without his input and support, my thinking would not be where it is today.

Thanks for stopping by!

@djgteaching

References:

1. Wiki/Maslow – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
(Accessed 15th July 2023)

2. Simply Psychology – https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
(Accessed 15th July 2023)

3. Philipp Guttmann – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52306030 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
(Accessed 15th July 2023)

Science or The Sciences?

Despite being a Physics specialist, I consider myself to be a science teacher. This year I have taught Adaptations, Chemical Change, Electrolysis, as well as a whole bunch of Physics from KS3-5. Being a Science teacher is a really important part of my own positionality, alongside being a Physicist, Buddhist, Father and a Husband (order not hierarchical!) For some time I have been writing about science curriculum planning and sequencing, with a significant focus on KS3 science. In my own setting we teach “science” at KS3, treating Biology, Chemistry, and Physics as topics within a single subject. Much of this approach has been forced by circumstance. In my time as Head of Science (approaching 9 years now…) it has been difficult to recruit Chemistry teachers and impossible to recruit for Physics, so my team and I have had to become adept at teaching outside of our own specialisms.

n.b. – Jack Worth writes some fantastic stuff for the NFER on teacher retention and recruitment. The Teacher Labour Market in England Annual Report 2023 (McLean, Worth, Faulkner-Ellis, 2023) is freely available and well worth a read for anyone wanting to gain a deeper insight into the current state of affairs regarding the current crisis.

Whilst reading a blogpost by a fellow head of science on the topic of sequencing, I again came to thinking about the choices we make in terms of how we plan and sequence KS3 Sciences. In his post, Jay makes a compelling case for teaching Biology, Chemistry and Physics as three distinct subjects, each with their own identity, sequence, and, most importantly, teachers. I think, in an ideal world, I may be inclined to prefer this route for all young people in England. Unfortunately we just do not have the resources or the staffing nationwide for this to be the case. I became curious just how widespread each approach is, so I went to a twitter poll to ask which approach teachers currently used. I managed to get 1514 responses and the results are as follows:

Questionnaire 1 results – view of KS3 Science

As you can see, the overwhelming majority of teachers teach their KS3 curriculum as “science”. Sometimes with split classes, in which staff would share one of the specialisms between them. During the 24 in which this poll ran, I became curious as to whether there was a leaning towards a certain type of school who ran KS3 as three distinct subjects. So I posted a follow up question asking those who chose “3 separate subjects” what type of school they came from. (I am aware that “private” and “independent” are often interchangeable, I also wish I had put “grammar” as one of the topics, but we live and learn!) As you can see from the results below, from a sample of 212 teachers, nearly 2 thirds of them came from state-maintained schools or academies, with 35% from independent / private schools.

Questionnaire 2 results – school type

What is starting to interest me is how do students following these two routes conceptualize “science” as a result of their differing experiences. Some interesting questions here include:

• does having 3 teachers v 1 affect the way in which pupils view “science” as a subject?
• how are sequences different as a result of them being independent to each other as three disciplines?
• how do big ideas such as forces, energy, and particles, translate across the 3 disciplines when taught as separate subjects?
• how does the “subject knowledge” vs “deeper relationships with pupils” argument actually play out?
• what are the experiences of teachers delivering “science”, does this drive up workload?
• are the CPL needs of staff teaching out of specialism being met?
• is the a “best way”? How can this be determined? Who defines “best”?

Over the next 2-3 years I will be conducting research for my EdD, likely in this area (sequencing in science). I’m keen to hear your views and / or experiences on this topic. Drop me a comment below or pop by twitter for a chat @djgteaching.

Thanks for stopping by!

References

Dawson McLean, Jack Worth and Henry Faulkner-Ellis, 2023, Teacher Labour Market in England Annual Report 2023.
Available at https://www.nfer.ac.uk/teacher-labour-market-in-england-annual-report-2023/

Gash, David, 2019, Curriculum thinking for Science (Part 1 – Sequencing in KS3)
Available at https://djgteaching.wordpress.com/2019/07/29/curriculum-thinking-for-science-part-1-sequencing-in-ks3/

Lobina-Lal, Jay, 2023, Finding the Impossible Optimum in KS3 Science
Available at https://areallybad.blog/finding-the-impossible-optimum-in-key-stage-3-science/

Today, I used a textbook.

When I first became head of science back in 2014, I had a very dim (and foolish) view of textbooks. I believed they were a sign of lazy planning, overreliance and boring lessons. In this blog post, I am going to share a revelation… I was so wrong.

Fast forward 8 years, Covid, lockdowns, squeeze on public finances, and TikTok, and all of a sudden the world is a very different place. (I have just been sent a TikTok link to watch by a colleague whilst I type which made me chuckle!) What is also very different is my insistence that all of the 10 teaching labs we have at my school are well supplied with textbooks for KS3 and 4, as well as revision guides as a supporting resource. I even used them myself today!

Retaching – plugging the gaps.

Period 1 today was my reteach lesson with Y10 GCSE Physics. This particular group of 30 avid Physicists are a real joy to teach. We have been working through the Energy GCSE topic and their review lesson last time out yielded one or two areas I felt the need to reteach, one of them being calculations which required changing the subject. I decided a good starting point, given previous lessons, would be to do a live walkthrough, over the visualizer, of a HT question on GPE and KE (gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy) from P1 2019. It was a perfect example of what some of my pupils had been having difficulties with in previous lessons, and it also offered the rest an opportunity to hear my narrations as I model the thinking process required for such a problem.

Below is a screen grab from the first part of this question. (AQA – feel free to tell me to take this down if this is not permitted?!) We completed the question together, slowly and with purpose, so that some of the key exam tips could be identified, such as:
– the need to immediately convert kJ into J
– the benefits of substituting before solving (we use the EVERY method in our books to train the pupils on this, you can read more about this here)
– allocation of marks (1 for substitution, 1 for rearranging, 1 for the final answer)

The remainder of the question looked at the energy transfers and the effects of air resistance. The entire 7-mark question took, in total, around 15 minutes to walk through. (This included some cold-calling and discussion throughout.)

But hold on, I thought we were talking about textbooks?!

Well.. yes…

You see, normally I would follow some teacher input with a carefully crafted (or downloaded) SLOP sheet or mini-whiteboard assessment. The trouble is, teaching is high on pressure and low on time. Thankfully I had to hand a wonderful resource, a GCSE Physics textbook.

So my instructions to the pupils were simple. They next had to either:
a.) go to the topic of GPE and KE and attempt similar questions to check if the walkthrough had the desired effect, or,
b.) go to another topic that requires a similar approach (elastic potential energy for example) and complete those questions, or,
c.) go to the end of chapter exam questions and complete those

Now of course they didn’t have 100% free reign. Here human beings are notoriously biased when it comes to estimating this own abilities. (The Dunning–Kruger Effect is rife, especially in classrooms of 30 teenagers!) So I spent the next 10 minutes or so circulating and observing. Offering course corrections and prompts where needed to those pupils who were not quite on the wrong path.

Ok so textbooks have questions?! And?!

Textbooks should not be taboo in teaching. Here are 7 reasons why:

1. Glossary – a wonderful list of key words and their definitions. Pupils can check these were their knowledge is less secure. This saves them having to put their hand up to ask the teacher, freeing you up to do more 1-2-1 support with problem solving.
2. Concrete examples – the pages are filled with relatable examples for whatever concept you are teaching. No need to “google it” for a decent image. It is right there for you.
3. Questions – often written by subject specialists and mapped against the exam specifications.
4. Self-assess – part of our feedback policy is that pupils self-assess some of their own work. A good textbook will provide immediate feedback in the form of worked solutions to questions.
5. Reteach lesson – in the example above, textbooks provided me with options and flexibility
6. Inclusive – textbooks provide all pupils with equitable access to the rich knowledge of our universe, without the need to put their hands up to ask. This is especially powerful for those with particular SEND needs who may otherwise not ask the question.
7. Timesaver – need I say anything further?!

So there it is. I like textbooks. They are just another tool for teaching that can be utilized skillfully, or really poorly. How this is done is actually down to us.

Thanks for stopping by. Feel free to tell me how bad my handwriting is over on Twitter @DJGTeaching.

Survey Results – Post holders in Science

I recently conducted a very unscientific survey into leadership structures in secondary science departments. This blog post aims to outline some findings from these data. First, I will outline the questions posted, then give an overview of the 334 responses before providing a brief analysis of two specific subsets of the data. Enjoy!

The questions:

I wanted to find out what types of TLR roles were prevalent in secondary school science departments. I suspected many would use a mix of a second in department, heads of biology, chemistry, and Physics and the Key Stage coordinator model. I was surprised at the range of posts currently being employed in schools and how much the number of posts varied. Here are the questions I asked:

1. Are you currently a HoD (or acting as)? This could be a useful filter for the data.
2. Do you currently run any A-Level courses? Again, a potentially useful filter.
3. Please indicate which roles currently exist within your science. Multiple choice, allowing participants to select from a list of commonly seen roles. I also included a text box for “other” responses.
4. Current Ofsted rating? I’m always curious how this sits alongside such things!
5. Number of students on roll? I suspected this will correlate with the number of post holders in departments.

Some headlines figures on who responded (Q1, 2, 4, and 5).

There was a near-even split of responses between science teachers and heads of department. The linked data set can be filtered “yes” on this question to provide a way of avoiding duplicate school entries.

My second question provides an opportunity to filter responses to see if schools offering KS5 subjects tend to have specific types of post-holders. Around two thirds of respondents work in schools that offer A-Level. (In hindsight I should have asked about “KS5 subjects” rather than just “A-Level”.)

Next, the Ofsted profile. In April of 2021 I ran a survey looking at the time science departments get on the curriculum to deliver their courses in KS3 and KS4. In this blog post (which you can read here) I also asked about Ofsted ratings. I have, unashamedly, used the 2021 data here as a slightly outdated estimate to see how my respondents compared. (Apologies for the small image size, the resolution is awful.) Given the slightly smaller sample size used this time (n=667 versus n=334) I was pleasantly surprised to see that the sample overall had a very similar profile to national. (Outstanding schools -1% points, Good schools +4% points, RI schools -5% points and inadequate rated schools no difference.)

The following graph shows the data for school size. Again, I was keen to collect data that could identify if any correlation between school size and the types of roles employed in science departments exists.

Types and number of roles within departments (Q3).

Ok on to the good stuff! The next graph shows, by percentage of respondents, what TLRs / roles exist within departments excluding HoD. It is not surprising to see that 2^nd in department and Heads of Subjects are very popular amongst schools. An interesting pattern emerges when looking at the KS Coordinator roles with KS3 being far more popular than KS4 or 5. I suspect this may be due to the role existing in tandem with heads of subject or 2^nd in department. (The latter will often take on responsibility for KS4.)

The “other” column was far higher than I expected. 28 out of the 86 responses in this column recorded “head of science”. (I should have put a note to exclude these roles from any responses to mitigate this.) The rest of this column included some clarifications such as “2 x second in department” and mentions of some other roles such as “3^rd in department”, “BTEC Lead”, “Transition coordinator”, “Enrichment coordinator” and “Mastery Lead”. None appeared frequently enough to warrant recording as a separate bar.

Whilst reviewing this question it became apparent that it would be interesting to do a head count per response. i.e., how many roles did each respondent record? How many roles exist within departments? The next graph illustrates the number of schools reporting number of roles per department, for the entire data set.

The mode for this was 3 post holders per department excluding the HoD although 1, 2 and 4 post-holders were also very common. 4 schools reported having 7 (yes, seven!) post-holders supporting their head of department. In all 4 of these schools a sixth form is offered, they are Ofsted rated Good or better (75% Outstanding), have over 1000 pupils on roll, and have a mix of both KS coordinators and Heads of subjects.

It is also worth noting that only 2 of the 43 schools reporting 5+ post-holders, and none of the 15 schools reporting 6+ post-holders, were rated less than good by Ofsted.

The next graph shows these same data cumulatively. I feel this is a far more useful way or representing these data. Over 75% of schools have at least 2 post-holders supporting their HoD and over 55% have at least 3.

Data subset 1 – “Good” schools with 1000-1499 pupils.

Given that “Good” is the most commonly seen rating for secondary schools, and that the most popular NOR figure in my survey was 1000-1499 pupils, I thought it would be interesting to see how the previous data changes when we look at Good schools with 1000-1499 pupils on roll as a specific subset. This kind of analysis can be easily done with any Ofsted rating and NOR should the reader wish to do so.

As expected, the proportions have shifted somewhat. One would expect that smaller schools would have 0-2 post-holders supporting their HoD. As this now looks solely at 1000-1499 on roll, these columns have reduced as a proportion of the whole.

Looking at the cumulative data we can now see that 82.4% of schools have at least 2 post-holders and a Hod, up from 75% in the original data set. 61.8% have 3 in place, up from 55.7%.

Data subset 2 – Schools with A-Level.

Running A-level courses requires extra expertise, experience, leadership, and management. Are these extra demands reflected in the number of staff with leadership roles in schools? Unsurprisingly the answer is quite simply, “yes”. The first graph shows a very similar distribution to subset 1 but with a more prominent peak in the “4 roles” column. This probably reflects the greater number of schools within this subset with the “Heads of subject” model. (Spare a thought for the 11 schools who run A-Level and just have a head of department in place!)

The cumulative results show a general uplift from 2+ post-holders right up to 7 post-holders. Food for thought – if you offer A-Level, two thirds of schools have a Head of Science in place supported by three other post-holders. I found this point quite provocative, so I went back to my spreadsheet and had a play with the filters. When looking at schools with 2 or fewer post-holders offering A-Level, the prevalence of RI and Inadequate schools increased. Most of these schools have a second in department and no heads of subject. Filtering for three or more yielded mostly good / outstanding schools with heads of subject in place for the three sciences.

I could go on but…

I set out to gather some data that I thought would help Heads of Science get a better picture of the resources they have compared to similar schools. There is much more that could be looked at here however I will leave it there for this initial blog post. All participants of this survey agreed, via the first screen, that the data may be shared so I have created a copy of the excel sheet and made it downloadable here. I would love to hear of any further analysis of these data that teachers / head of subject make!

I hope this has been of interest and / or of use. As always, I can be found lurking on twitter @djgteaching.  

Thanks for dropping by!

Lesson Evaluation 3 – Mini Whiteboards – 5 top tips.

I’m going to just say it. I think mini white boards (MWBs) are the single greatest tool in teaching. (Well, maybe joint first with a visualizer!) However, as is the case with all tools in teaching, they are only as good as the teacher who wields them. In this post I aim to share some of my top 5 tips for their use in the classroom.

But first, pupils need to be trained in their use.

Training the pupils to use MWBs effectively is well worth the time cost. You cannot just give the boards out and then start asking questions. You have to define the format in which you expect the pupils to respond and outline the protocol in which they do so. In each of the strategies listed below I will include a “And how it is done” which will discuss the format in which the pupils must respond. These routines will have been explicitly taught, and reinforced each time we are about to commence the activity.

1. – Lesson start (“Do now”) – prior knowledge quiz.

My department and I have been introducing prior knowledge quizzes with the pupils designed specifically to target the prior knowledge the pupils need to have in order to successfully add the new knowledge from the upcoming lesson to their schema. (A shout out to Adam Boxer here who did some work with us a year ago on this.) Together we looked at some of my department’s early examples of these prior knowledge questions and tweaked them to ensure that we could “standardize the format” of the pupil’s responses. Here is an example taken from our GCSE Physics course (Nb – each question and answer animates one-by-one at the teacher’s pace):

Image 1 – prior knowledge “do now” / quiz on Moments for KS4.

Notice the wording of questions 3 and 4. The front loading of “draw this line” ensures that the pupils have exactly that drawn on their MWBs. This means, when they answer the rest of each question, I can assess whether or not they have understood the “perpendicular” with higher accuracy from the standardized format of the pupil’s responses. This conversation really was a lightbulb moment last year and has gone on to inform our design of prior knowledge questions for the rest of our courses. Here is another example, this time from KS3:

Image 2 – prior knowledge “do now” / quiz on Atoms for KS3.

Note the way in which question 3 is framed. By specifying the use of only 10 particles, you reduce the chance of pupils wasting time drawing dozens of them, plus you standardize the format of the response on the whiteboards.

And how is it done?

• Each pupil has a board and a pen. The teacher will click the PowerPoint slide to reveal the first question.
• The teacher will also read the question out twice just in case some pupils are unsure about the pronunciation of a word. (Some teachers choose to reduce the cognitive load here and read the question out first before revealing it on the board, so not too overload the auditory channel.)
• The pupils then get a short, defined, period of time to write their answer on the whiteboard.
• The teacher gives the instruction “if you are unsure, please write a question mark on your board”. This allows for a clearer picture of who does not know, and ensures a “no opt out” approach.
• The teacher then calls “3, 2, 1, boards up”, ensuring all pupils take part.
• The teacher scans the room and then reveals the answer.

Next is the important part. If no one knew the answer, the knowledge must be taught! In some instances this may mean a 5-20 minute detour from the intended learning however this will often lead to stronger learning in the longer term and is worthwhile!

(Nb – For September 2022 my department and I have decided to use these quizzes as the “do now” in all our lessons. The pupils will be writing their responses in full sentences in books – hence the longer responses on the second example. Why? Well the reason is two-fold. First, we have moved to a full ban on mobile phones, meaning we can no longer use Tassomai for our lessons starts, secondly we have chosen to use this as an opportunity to develop scientific literacy in terms of the quality of student’s written responses.)

2. – Assessment for Learning.

“Learning is invisible” (Was this David Didau?! – I’ll happily take a correction here!) Using whiteboards to check for understanding during the lesson is one of the most powerful uses of MWBs. So you are part way through a lesson, things seem to be going well, the pupils are “engaged” (whatever that means), and you think they have grasped the knowledge so far. Ok, well it is time to check! Using MWBs as a tool for low stakes quizzing is incredibly powerful and follows much of what I wrote about for strategy 1.

And how is it done?

• Each pupil has a board and a pen.
• The teacher calls a question out twice. The pupils are warned in advance that each question will be read aloud “twice, not thrice!” This ensures everyone is listening intently.
• The pupils then get a short, defined, period of time to write their answer on the whiteboard.
• The teacher gives the instruction “if you are unsure, please write a question mark on your board” to ensure no opt out.
• The teacher then calls “3, 2, 1, boards up”, ensuring all pupils take part.
• The teacher scans the room and then reveals the answer.

The beauty of this is it allows you to get a true sense of what has been retained in the shorter term. These quizzes can be interleaved with knowledge from previous topics to check to see if knowledge has been committed to long term memory. After 15 years of teaching, these moments in my lessons still throw up surprises in terms of what the pupils can and can not yet do and from this, I reteach as needed.

3. – Supporting individual pupils.

Some pupils need further guidance and support. It is part of the bread and butter of teaching that, once a task is underway, we circulate and check on certain pupils to ensure they are clear about what they need to do. Having a MWB on the pupil’s desk is a non-threatening why of offering further clarifications, especially for those who just hate the extra green biro pen in their exercise books! It is also a wonderful way of providing support with spellings on a 1-2-1 basis and worked examples of calculations.

And how is it done?

• Once you have launched your activity / task, circulate.
• Stop at those pupil’s who need immediate support / checking.
• Discretely, over the shoulder or crouched down next to the pupil, whatever is most comfortable for the pupil and teacher.
• Continue to circulate, look at the pupil’s books as you do.
• Stop and support as required.

It is worth noting that circulation is such an important tool for assessment. You may find that there is a significantly minority or even a majority who have not grasped what you thought they had. In these instances, bring them back to the front board and reteach!

4 – Practicing scientific drawings.

Science is a subject rich in diagrams, procedures and techniques. MWBs offer a wonderful way of engaging the pupils in the practice of getting these things right more often! This makes for a really rich retrieval practice and assessment opportunity.

And how is it done?

• “Right class, you now have 2 minutes to draw a fully labelled palisade mesophyll cell, this must include all labels discussed in lessons.
• Teacher circulates and praises!
• After around 1 minute, clues are put up on the board as required. This could be the list of key labels or a partially completed diagram. I like to do the latter via my own MWB drawing under a visualizer.
• Teacher circulates again.
• 30 second warning given.
• An excellent example from the class is shared and assessed via the visualizer.

This task can be carried out with other aspects of the curriculum, such as: the steps in making salts, diagrams for making chromatograms, a fully labelled fractionation tower, or bar diagrams showing the transfer or energy between stores! The possibilities are endless! I sometimes like to name a piece of scientific equipment, such as a conical flask, and then ask the pupils to draw it (scientifically) in 30s.

5. – Got time left? Get the board’s out!

Sometimes lessons can run quicker than anticipated. Having MWBs on desks means that, should you end up with a few minutes to spare, you can immediately start a quiz like those described in strategy 3 or 4! No more lost learning time! 🙂

Concluding thoughts.

MWBs are a fantastic tool for aiding the teacher in being responsive to the needs of the class, whether this is in supporting groups, individuals, or simply assessing learning. Yes there are trade offs, such as the time required to give the boards out / collect back in, the training of pupils, and potential behavioural issues that may arise. The latter ultimately comes down to your own expectations of your pupils. If it will enhance the learning that takes place, surely it is worth doing?

And no, I am not immune to random drawings appearing on the MWBs in my lessons. See “exhibit A” below, taken from a Y10 lesson this year. It is a pretty good likeness to be fair.

Image 3 – Exhibit A.

As always I’ll be over on twitter happy to chat more about MWBs or anything else teaching related! Have a great day!

Thanks for stopping by.

@Djgteaching

Inspection.

Disclaimer – the views shared here are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. Furthermore, these views do not aim to be critical, only to promote discussion about what must be one of the most challenging areas to work in within education. – Inspection of schools.

n.b. – I originally wrote this blogpost in August of 2022 but I did not feel ready at that time to share it publicly. Given recent events surrounding the inspectorate, it seems as though now is a more appropriate time to share.

Accountability is necessary.

Firstly, this is something I firmly truly believe in. The job that we do is far too significant to think that we can continue without some school level of accountability. Having said this I do believe much of how this is done, could be done differently.

Ofsted.

In my view, his majesty’s inspectorate doesn’t need to be abolished. Having experienced many Ofsted inspections and meetings, I have always found inspectors to be well intentioned and fair. I do not however believe that the current approach and timescales is the best use of these often highly skilled and experienced individuals. In this post I aim to share my views on an alternative approach to school inspection and accountability.

High stakes helps no one.

Finding out the day before an inspection induces stress and tension amongst the work force. This leads to further performativity (Ball, 2003) and observer bias. Yes, many staff can put on a good show, and so they should! But surely the essence of accountability should be to observe what is, and then to suggest steps forward. The current system, in my opinion, fails to do this.

Hit the rest button.

My school has had 12 visits in 14 years. I know of a colleague at a school that hadn’t been inspected in 14 years. For further perspective on this here are some key events from 14 years ago:

– The first Hangover film was released

– The Black Eyed Peas had several number ones

– Manchester United were still world-beaters

– Barak Obama was sworn in as President

– Swine flu was the global pandemic

– I had just started dating my wife. We have now been married 10 years and have two beautiful boys, the eldest of which is now 8 and has achieved so much already.

So if the world has changed so much, why have some schools not required inspection? (Yes, I am aware that this is starting to be addressed.)

A proposal.

So here it is. a few suggestions from my own, narrow, naïve viewpoint. I am sure there are lots of holes in this plan, funding issues and objections from those with differing worldviews and that is absolutely fine, but at least hear me out first…

1. More frequent inspection.

Controversial starting point but how can parents and carers of young people make any sort of conclusion about a school from a single inspection that may be a decade out of date? More frequent inspection (minimum – every 2 years) would give a more up to date and realistic view of the workings of the school. I would sooner see a termly visit but on far different terms to that which we see now in graded and ungraded inspection (read on for more on this).

2. Remove the current grading system.

Education is far too complex to boil it down to a simple number or phrase such as “Good” or “Inadequate”. Having worked in a school graded “Inadequate” before I can say that within this judgement the school continued to do some incredible things for our young people and the term does not do this work justice.

We have a similar argument when reporting on the progress of our students. As a parent myself, receiving a score of “Good”, “On/above/below”, “Grade 3+” etc on a school report is pretty meaningless without the narrative that comes with it. Having a summative judgement only helps the statisticians.

3. Effective / not effective on safeguarding.

One area that we must continue to report on as either being effective or not is safeguarding. I doubt that anyone in education would debate this statement too much. In my view, this statement should sit on page 1 of any report alongside the fuller narrative of the report. If the school is inspected more regularly, significant safeguarding issues should, in theory, reduce in frequency and severity.

4. Qualitative report only.

As a parent and a teacher, I would like / expect to see and understand what the current strengths and areas for improvement (AFIs) of a school were, not a meaningless number or label.

5. Local accountability.

With termly or yearly visits comes the opportunity to have a local challenge partner or similar conducting the inspection. This team of people (current inspectors) would develop a working knowledge of the school over time and would be able to factor in local contexts when formulating AFIs. This team would need to be held to account centrally of course but the big advantage of working more closely with schools over a longer period of time is that AFIs can be revisited and evaluated together more meaningfully.

I doubt that I have all of the answers here however I do believe that something has to change.

Thanks for dropping by!

@djgteaching

References

Ball, S.J. (2003), The Teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. JEP, 18 (2), 215-228

How I do – The Teacher Planner

There has been much debate recently on the use of the teacher planner on Twitter and on Teacher Talk Radio (you can listen here, I have yet to do so at the time of writing!) I have tried so many different options over the years but I think I have finally settled on a simple system that allows my planner to work best for me, and not the other way around!

Disclaimer – planners are personal things. There is no best way, just your way!

I’ve seen some incredible looking planners from teachers, such as those provided by the Teacher Planner Company. I’ve also seen some really effective use of Planboard for those who like a bit of tech in their lives. For me, I need a system that saves me as much time as possible, and is paper based so that I can “see” my week to view without the need to log on to my computer. Here I will share my process with the hope that it will help somebody somewhere to streamline their own. I will also link my excel file for those who wish to adapt it.

Setting up my planner.

In my school we run a two week timetable. Since the first year of my career I have used an excel spreadsheet to produce a printout of my timetable for my lab so I use this template, drop the colours, and scale up to fit on A3.

So this is essentially a page of my planner, week to view. I do a version for week A and week B, then ask our wonderful reprographics guy to print enough back to back, for 1 full term. The beauty of doing this is that the class codes and my PPA / leadership time is already written in so I don’t need to spend hours doing that! Also, I allocate a time each week for planning. The only “admin” I need to do is to add in the date for each week at the top.

Filling out my planner – my second brain!

I have played around with fully electronic versions of planners and, for me, having a paper version is so much better. It allows me to make edits on the go and, as I have already mentioned, I am not bound to any one network or device. Being a science teacher, it is important that some planning is done at least 1 week in advance so that practical requests can be submitted and processed. (We do this via Lablogger, I have written about this in the past albeit it is now a bit of a dated post – feel free to check it out here.) Here is a breakdown of what I do each week, and why I do it:

1 – Class codes included on original printout. This is a huge time saver – this year I am going to add the number of pupils in brackets to make it easier for me to figure out my printing requests quickly!

2 – I write in a lesson title or code (we have lessons and resources planned centrally as a department), any printing I need is written in and highlighted in green. Once the week is completed I can then send 1 big email to our reprographics guy with my request for the week. Simples.

3 – Homework that is due is written in and highlighted in yellow. I used to be terrible for setting and forgetting! This really helps me to set up strong homework routines with my classes.

4 – Practical orders written in and highlighted in blue. We have centrally planned practicals called “GSMs”. You can read more about these here. When I have completed my weekly plan, I upload what I need to Lablogger, this normally takes 10-15 minutes.

5 – I tend to use some of my non-teaching time to deal with my to-do lists. I find physically writing these out and crossing them off to both help with my productivity and sense of achievement!

6 – Space for after school classes, meetings and interventions with pupils.

7 – Notes for whole school events such as trips, vaccinations.

8 – In the run up to exams I tend to meet with pupils 1-2-1 or in small groups during non-teaching time. The purple on the image shows these meetings! (Blanked out names of course!)

9 – Lesson count down! I find it very useful to keep track of how many lessons I have before the next assessment. I normally do this in the 3-4 weeks leading up to internal assessment points or external exams for Y11 and 13.

Closing thoughts.

It doesn’t look pretty and I cannot save it to the cloud BUT it works for me. Each to their own on this one folks! My best advice is to try different approaches and then settle on what works best for you. If it makes you happy, saves you time, gives you an opportunity to practice mindfulness, and/or helps you organise a high mental load, then it is worth doing.

As always, I can be found over on twitter if you wish to chat more @djgteaching.

Thanks for stopping by!

planner-2021-2022Download

Lesson Evaluation 2 – Disciplinary Literacy in Science part 1 – Extended writing.

A couple of years ago my department and I began focusing in on developing disciplinary literacy. (For the record, I really like the definition of this given by Shanahan & Shanahan (2012) as “the specifics of reading, writing, and communicating in a discipline”.) In other words, getting our students to read, write and communicate (i.e. speak) like young scientists! We started out with something relatively simple which we felt could have high impact – the use of Frayer Models to develop tier 2 and tier 3 vocabulary. (You can read about our work on this here.) In the past 18 months we have evolved our work to develop both reading and extended writing in Science. I hope to post about our approaches to both, starting here with extended writing. (Fingers crossed there isn’t a 2 year wait between blog posts this time!)

The Task – Year 8 Separating Techniques.

Each half term we ask our pupils to do a piece of extended writing. In the past this was a response to a 6-mark question inspired by GCSE assessment, however, we felt that this approach limited what we could get the pupils writing about and how much they would write! So we have begun moving towards more open ended tasks. The example I share here is from Y8, which was originally posed as a 6-mark question in previous years. This year it was opened up to allow the pupils more freedom to write extensively. The task I set them was, To describe the steps needed to separate salt from rock salt. This was actually later extended to “explain” the steps due to the ease at which they approached it! (This is the beauty of not using 6-mark questions, you can adapt the task as required / as it evolves – responsive teaching!) Next I will describe the approach I took and how it unfolded across 3 lessons.

The Planning Phase.

The practical itself is one most secondary science teachers will be familiar with. It requires the pupils to extract sodium chloride (table salt) from a rock salt mixture, using several techniques taught to them during the course of the unit including: filtration, evaporation, and crystallisation. (For tips on effective practical work you can read my post for PMT Education here.) During the practical the pupils have a simple 2×2 grid in their books in which they use to make brief notes on each of the steps for the practical. The pupils are shown how to construct this grid with four headings (grinding, dissolving, filtering, and evaporating) over the visualizer. The pupils knew, before starting the practical, that I would be asking them to write extensively about it in a later lesson and that I was going to mark / feed back to them. Front loading the task in this manner was deliberate, to try and build in as much motivation as possible for them to record detailed notes (and they did!)

Image 1 – The 2×2 grid for initial note taking.

At the end of the practical we went through the planning grid via the visualizer to discuss the main steps and check for any misconceptions. This was a great opportunity for cold-calling on particle theory, names of equipment, and procedural issues such as “why did we?” It is worth noting here that this was the end of the first 1 hour lesson.

Setting the Task.

“Ok kids, now write about your practical, off you go!”

Not quite!

At the start of the second lesson in this sequence I reminded the pupils of our original task, To describe the steps needed to separate salt from rock salt. I then took some time to share some of the better planning grids from the previous lesson via the visualiser. (To improve retrieval from the previous lesson – not all retrieval practice is quiz questions after all!) The next step is critical in terms of developing disciplinary literacy. I have absolutely no issue with pupil writing in bulky paragraphs and continuous prose, however, I want to see more precise scientific writing, bullet points, lists, etc. So I take the opportunity to give the following writing guidelines to the pupils:
– try using bullet points or numbered steps
– avoid using “I”, “we”, “they”, “you” etc.
I then gave the pupils roughly 15 minutes writing time. Those who finished within this time could go on Tassomai and complete some retrieval practice whilst others finished.

Before I go further, since conducting this work with Y8, I have included an extra step here which is rather simple. I now give the pupils the following reminder,
Now that you have finished written work, can you now please take a few minutes to proof read your work. Please check your spellings against your key words in your plan from last lesson, and make sure you have not omitted any capital letters, full stops or other important punctuation!
This step should massively reduce the time I waste trying to pick out silly mistakes and allow me to focus on feeding back on developing scientific writing. (Most pupils know how to use a capital letter, they are just children making silly mistakes sometimes!) I then collect the books in.

Pro tip – when collecting the books in for marking, I asked the pupils to stack them, open on the page they completed the task, so I could save time having to look for them! 😉

Marking.

Anyone who knows me will know my views on marking and may be surprised to see me discussing it here! Let me be clear, this is the only task my staff are expected to hand mark in books (once per half term) as part of a blended approach to feedback in my department. This provides us with an opportunity to look more closely at our pupils’ books and quality of writing, without it becoming onerous and a huge time sink.

When marking I am mainly looking at the work from 2 perspectives:
1 – Marking for literacy – spellings, punctuation, writing style, etc. We do have whole school marking codes to use as required here, but the approach is very relaxed and teachers are encouraged to use them as they deem appropriate.
2 – Marking for scientific accuracy – names of apparatus, correct steps taken, correct science in both description and explanation.
Please note the images I share here have more annotations on them than I would like. I am hoping that improved proof-reading as discussed earlier will reduce the need for “Sp” and “Cp” (spelling and capital letter codes) on much of the work in future!

Image 2 – An example of marking using codes.

Whilst marking I have a note pad next to me to record the main themes to be shared via whole-class feedback. This approach saves me having to write out the same feedback in books 30 times – what a waste of time that would be!

Feedback and redrafting.

Depending on the number and significance of these themes I may choose to print a copy of the whole class feedback notes for the pupils to stick to in their books for reference. In this instance this is exactly what I decided to do. In the following lesson I then ask them to read my feedback / marking silently whilst I take the register. They also read their own work again fully.

Image 3 – An example of the whole class feedback printed in books. (Nb – WAS stands for Writing About Science – the name of our literacy drive.)

I chose 3 excellent first drafts from the group and read them out loud to the class. In each instance I have the work under the visualizer so the pupils could see the style of writing, presentation of work (use of bullet points etc.) and correct spellings of key terms. Feedback is pretty pointless unless the pupils have an opportunity to act upon it (EEF 2018). This can be something quick or more extensive. Here I chose the latter and determined that the pupils would completed a full redraft of their work based upon:
1 – The individual marking / codes on their work.
2 – The whole class feedback given to them (shown above).
3 – Hearing and seeing 3 great examples from the group.
Redrafting then takes place during a 15-minute window with pupils moving on to Tassomai if they finish early. I circulate the room to give more specific feedback and support as needed.

Image 4 – Two examples of redrafted work.

Closing thoughts.

+ The pupils had an extended opportunity to focus on both what they write and how they write it.
+ Each pupil had personalised feedback that was relatively immediate (following lesson) and that they could act upon.
+ The development of disciplinary literacy seems to have had a sustained impact in the pupils work during follow up tasks in lesson.
+ The visualizer allowed me to show the pupils what a good one looks like!

– The whole process had a significant time cost (1 full lesson plus 2 half lessons, one for first draft, one for feedback and second draft)
– There is still an argument that marking a sample of 6 books rather than all 30 would have given me the information I need to inform whole class feedback.

My department and I are now looking at how we can further develop the disciplinary literacy of our students. I’d be really keen to hear approaches from other schools, so feel free to comment below or to chat to me further over on twitter.

Thanks for dropping by.

Dave

References:

Teaching and Learning Toolkit, EEF (2018) Available online at, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/pdf/generate/u=https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/pdf/toolkit/?id=131&t=Teaching%20and%20Learning%20Toolkit&e=131&s=
(Accessed 14th April 2022)

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.

Wouldn’t it be lovely…

The events of the past 2 years have weighed heavily on us all: the loss of loved ones, interruptions to normal life, changing of day-to-day behaviours and disruption to the development of our pupils. Throughout all the above, teachers have continued to work tirelessly, from learning to deliver online provision, to providing a safe place for some of our most vulnerable pupils to attend during the national lockdowns.

And now we are hopefully on the verge of a new dawn as we emerge from the pandemic. A chance for change, renewal and to embrace the valuable lessons learned from this trying time.

Before I go any further, I have 2 disclaimers to make:

1 – I believe Ofsted inspectors to be human beings motivated by wanting the best for children, I do not view them as the ‘bogeyman’ or as individuals trying to ‘catch us out’.

2 – Accountability has its place. It ensures that the end user, the children, get access to the quality of teaching they are entitled to. I am not claiming that exams and reporting of this aspect of school performance does not have a place.

During my recent EdD readings I have encountered Gert Biesta and how he discusses the question of the purpose of the education as being a “multidimensional” one (Biesta 2015, p.77) in which we should consider the following:

• Qualification – i.e. helping pupils to gain GCSEs etc,
• Socialisation – the “ways of being and doing” (cultures, traditions etc.),
• Subjectification – how education impacts on them as an individual, how it shapes them.

Biesta’s 3 domains of Educational Purpose (2015, p.78)

Teachers have had 2 years now in which the GCSE outcomes, reported as CAGs and TAGs, do not have a bearing on the judgement of a school. 2022 outcomes nationally are going to be terribly skewed this summer as the impact of COVID is felt in those areas in which attendance rates have been lowest, access to ICT has been scarce and, at times, even food has been hard to come by.

And yet, they will determine the direction of schools who experience an Ofsted visit soon after.

Imagine a world in which all three aspects of Biestas’ multidimension purpose equally informed the judgement of schools? No longer would schools be limited by their GCSE outcomes and P8 rating. The incredible work carried out by incredible teachers in the most difficult places to work would be truly recognised. Reports would be full of wonderful stories of how Headteachers carried food parcels to the doors of children and families who needed it, of those children who overcame a fear due to the intervention of their class teacher, or even quotes of some of the amazing comments about the school shared by staff and parents.

The conduct of many teachers and school leaders has been outstanding incredible, given the plight we have found ourselves in. (Namely without access to a staff room to drink alcohol in!) What an opportunity we have in front of us now, to change how schools are represented to the communities we serve, rather than fall back into pre-covid habits.

Wouldn’t it be lovely if school “performance” wasn’t driven by one aspect of the purpose of education?

Thanks for dropping by.

Dave

@djgteaching

References:
BIESTA, G. 2015. What is Education For? On Good Education, Teacher Judgement, and Educational Professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50, 75-87.