I was overjoyed to be asked to present at Research Ed’s national conference last Saturday.
We have massively overcomplicated teaching. In my talk, I explored how we have overcomplicated it, why, why we need to go simple and how that would work, using examples from Michaela Community School.
I began the session with a series of questions, which readers may wish to revisit:
- How many activities do you need in a lesson?
- How often do the activities change in a lesson?
- How many different ‘starters’ do you create?
- How many different ‘plenaries’ do you have?
- How many variations on tasks do you have?
- How many slides do you have on a powerpoint?
- How many resources do you print for each lesson?
- How many ways are you expected to differentiate for children?
- How many pages does your scheme of work fill?
- How often have you changed schemes of work?
- How often have you taught the same curriculum two or more years in a row?
- How many intervention sessions have you run after school? Weekends?
- How much feedback do you give children?
- How much data do you gather? Input? Use?
- How many CPD sessions have explored new ways of teaching children?
- How many targets do you have to meet for your performance appraisal?
- How many trips do you take?
- How many forms do you have to fill out to take a trip?
- How many forms do you have to fill out to log a behaviour report?
- How many external agencies are working with your young people?
- How often do children miss your lessons for interventions?
- How do you get children to turn up to detentions, and what happens when they don’t?
- How many action plans have you written?
I spent four years teaching thirty slide powerpoint lessons. Life in a dark room, filled by clicks and mumbles, was uninspiring for both the children and me. The failures of the past, not purely powerpoint-related it must be conceded, have led to what I called ‘intervention hell’ in the present, something that will be kicking in soon for many teachers, if it hasn’t already. We are drowning in data we don’t use. External agencies are taking children out of the one thing that will change their life: lessons where they are learning.
Schools are no longer seen as places of learning – in the expectation that we will educate the whole child, prevent radicalisation, encourage healthy eating, and teach financial literacy (among other initiatives), we are missing the crucial thing: kids learning stuff, passing exams, having successful lives. In 2015, only 53% of kids in the country achieved the old benchmark of 5 A*-C including English and Maths. 47% of kids didn’t even get five Cs including English and Maths. Schools are categorically failing to teach all kids effectively. Our role has been massively overcomplicated.
But the over-complication is not only the state’s fault. We too must accept responsibility. In the ‘missionary teacher’ or ‘martyr teacher’ paradigm, too many of us have decided to ‘sacrifice our lives on the altar of pupil progress’, to borrow a phrase from Joe Kirby’s Michaela debate speech. Working fourteen hour days, working weekends, working holidays (as it seemed nearly the whole room was doing or had done at some point) is categorically not sustainable. Who can do that for thirty, forty years? Our martyrdom has spawned an arms race, where ambitious teachers strive to outcompete each other. Add to this soup flawed accountability measures, spurious research (learning styles, anyone?) and the ‘teacher as entertainer’ model pedalled by teacher training organisations and SLTs up and down the country, and you have a recipe for disastrous burnout, as evidenced by the 50,000 or so teachers leaving the classroom every year.
Why is simplicity better? Three reasons spring to mind: sustainability, consistency, retention. Sustainability for teachers: simpler teaching means we can have lives and carry on doing the job we love for the long-term. A career is a marathon, not a sprint. Consistency for children: teachers who stay massively impact on the children. Having the same teachers year in, year out, is undervalued at the moment. (In a later conversation, I mused about school improvement. I think a lot of mediocre schools who achieve great results do so by being strong on two fronts: behaviour, and teachers staying. Behaviour is obvious – better a calm than a chaotic school. But teachers staying, as long as they are middling to excellent and not diabolically harmful to children, has a massive impact on consistency within the school and consistency for children.) And retention: teachers who want to stay in the profession is of obvious benefit to schools who spent enormous sums of money and time on recruitment each year.
How do we simplify teaching? I explored three strands: curriculum, pedagogy and systems.
With the curriculum, I focused on within subject choices, rather than whole-school curriculum. When planning the curriculum, instead of fourteen page schemes of work that no child will ever see (or arguably benefit from), make unit packs. All ‘worksheets’ can be in the pack. No need for a powerpoint – everything is happier when your curtains are open in the classroom, and technology is an added stress teachers simply don’t need in their lives. At Michaela, we use packs to cut workload, but also to benefit kids: the text is central. Kids are reading a vast amount across subjects, not just in English. We add recap questions to strengthen pupil memory, resource comprehension and discussion questions to prevent teachers thinking these up on the spot or the night before, and prepare model exemplars to guide pupils to where we want them to end up.
With pedagogy, I foregrounded the three arms of practice at Michaela: direct instruction, questioning, and extended practice. There is a huge gap between our pupils and their wealthier counterparts, and the gap is partly knowledge and partly practice. To close the knowledge gap, we teach with urgency. We never ask pupils to guess, but instruct upfront by reading text and explaining. We then question to check understanding, and recap to aid memorisation. To close the practice gap, we make sure when we’re not questioning and teaching, the kids are reading and writing. Kids are generally great speakers, great debaters and especially great at arguing; that’s not where the gap is. Our kids need more reading and more writing, so we make sure they do lots of that. We need to teach with urgency all the way through school – from reception to year 10, we teach like every second is vital (because it is). Hopefully that way we can prevent the intervention hell that is year 11.
I showed some clips of what direct instruction looks like, as it can sound massively off-putting:
Notice how interactive these lessons are. It’s certainly not a case of teachers lecturing at bored children. We can’t just talk at children – that much is true. We have to constantly question and check they have understood and remembered what we have taught.
Finally, I explored three systems to simplify teaching: behaviour, homework and feedback. Currently, I would imagine the majority of schools ‘allow’ teachers to set their own detentions. This is great for building teacher-pupil relationships, but I would argue the drawbacks outweigh this benefit. Teachers set detentions of any length they choose, so children can judge different teachers to be stricter or ‘easier.’ If a pupil doesn’t turn up, individual teachers have to hunt the child down. Too often, teachers end up chasing detentions that are multiplying, constantly trying to remember who has and has not turned up, and liaising with form tutors and parents to cajole the children into serving their time. Long-term, many teachers give up. I don’t blame them. The administration involved in setting, sitting, chasing detentions is too much. So teachers stop bothering.
Similarly with homework – and homework isn’t just challenging in terms of sanctioning non-completion. Teachers are desperately trying to think up new and different homework tasks, setting it, and then marking it. Again, all this administration is overburdening and discourages pupil completion (‘son, what’s your science homework?’ ‘No idea. Something about research? It might be due next Tuesday? Dunno.’) At Michaela, all teachers set the same homework on a rigid timetable. All kids are revising their subjects for the same length of time in the same way. Absolutely no confusion over what they need to do or when; no excuses. (We use knowledge organisers to set this revision.)
Finally feedback – I’ve written at length on this before, so I would encourage you to revisit my lengthier piece if you’re interested. The long and the short of it: don’t do it.
I ended with some advice for leaders. When you have a shining star working 14 hour days, it is tempting to let them get on with it. But that sets unrealistic expectations for others, and could set up unfair comparisons between them and other teachers. They are also too often using their time pointlessly: extra marking, making transient displays, or forty five slide PowerPoints with the requisite resources. Instead, have the conversation with them: could every teacher do what you are doing? Do you want a family one day? Will you be able to do this when you do? When you lead a department, would you want every teacher doing this? Thousands of teachers leave the profession every year – how do we make this a school where people want to stay? What is the impact of your excessive workload on others in the department?
Leaders need to lead by example, teaching rigorous content, actually teaching, limiting their activities, resources and feedback (I suggested teachers carry a red pen around with you when kids are writing, and use icons to set targets instead of laborious written comments). Leaders need to mitigate the impact of school systems on teachers: if you lead a department, you set a centralised detention for that department if your school will not (show the SLT it works).
There were a number of questions and comments following the talk. One common thread in these questions was: where is the room for teacher creativity with such a rigid system? I guess we don’t really value creativity as highly as consistency and workload at Michaela. Although there is plenty of space for creativity in delivery (see: Jonny Porter jousting, above), we don’t let teachers make whizzy jazzy PowerPoints or decide to teach their own thing in their own way. Michaela is not for everyone.
But I would challenge questioners: sometimes what we enjoy doing most is not the best thing for the kids. And sometimes what we enjoy doing in our own classroom, going above and beyond for our kids, has an adverse impact on the others around us, not to mention our own workload. And finally, great content is exciting in and of itself! I wouldn’t choose to teach Julius Caesar – it’s not my favourite Shakespeare play. But I absolutely loved teaching it, because it’s Shakespeare! Same with Coleridge’s ‘Kubla Khan’ – not my favourite poem, but again, it is a great one, and so great to teach.
I was heartened by the people I met afterwards: it was especially lovely to hear teachers say to me: ‘I’ve done this for years and always been told I was wrong!’ What I’ve said is not revolutionary: many, many teachers have always known this. I hope Michaela can shine a light on what works for kids and teachers and allow these brilliant professionals to just teach, and then have a life. Some of what I said was not appreciated by some members of the audience; I had reports of some eye-rolling and tutting as I was speaking. I’d like to say: thank you. Thank you for coming to hear me speak, thank you for not walking out, thank you for taking the time to be challenged. Next time: ask a question, get in touch, tell me what you don’t like. It is wonderful to debate these ideas. I really think that in sacrificing some individuality and creativity we can deliver amazing results for pupils, and amazing work-life balance for teachers.
Reblogged this on The Echo Chamber.
This is brilliant. This is the sanest writing about teaching I have ever read. So envious of your school! Thank you for your clear sighted sanity.
This is a very nice post. I do believe you might refer to the approaches demonstrated as “Direct Instruction Lite” as I believe it is much less hardcore than the methods for which specifications are arriving from across the pond.
I agree with all of those who said afterwards that they had been teaching this way for years. The methods and strategies described and shown I would use on a daily basis. I teach this way but disguise what I do to more resemble the look of the misguided notions of malcompetent managers.
The workload agreement attempted to do a significant part of that which you recommend. Unfortunately many schools found themselves unable to manage this way with the resources available.
I feel that there are several reasons for the success of Michaela which would not be found generally…
-New therefore small school, growing organically
-SMT committed to DI lite
-Teach firsters who are happy to take a punt and many will not be teachers for long (not meant as a negaitive)
For many schools it would not be either easy or cheap to move independently from the current model to “Direct Instruction Lite”. I think free schools could present the opportunity but I fear it is not being managed effectively.
I would like to see DI Lite applied more systematically in free schools as it would be in new grammar schools.
One thing I thought was interesting was that in the documents collected by James Theobald. THe Business Studies organiser was headed “GCSE Applied Business”. I believe GCSE Applied sacrifices some knowledge for application in pratice hence “applied”. Would not the user of the DI approach see the applied specification as knowledge inferior. It seem odd to me to choose applied and then teach DI. Why not choose the straight GCSE. Just interested.
As others have said, lots of commonsense here. Thank you
Pingback: #rED2016 Blogs, videos, slides | A Roller In The Ocean
Interesting. I would be interested in how this applies to language teaching at michela- is it all done in the target language ? Is grammar discussed in English and then applied or is it experienced and then dissected? Or not discussed at all? As a teacher looking to limit PowerPoint use and increase target language by the pupils I’m curious!
I recommend you read Barry Smith’s blog https://hackingattheroots.wordpress.com/ – he teaches languages at Michaela and is fascinating to read
There is some very interesting information about Michaela’s approach to teaching MFL on their blog – found on their website mcsbrent.co.uk – The vocabulary acquisition alone is outstanding. It’s well worth a read.
Great post, it has had me thinking all afternoon.
I agree with much of what you have written. Here in Australia we are having the conversation as to why teachers are burning out. And you are right we have overcomplicated what teachers have to do and the teaching part is almost left as an afterthought because we are so busy ‘complying.’ At the same time as undervaluing teaching as a profession, pigeon holing teachers as just cogs in system, rather than highly trained, professionals that want the best for the learners in their care.
When discussing with my team that the culture of learning we wanted to foster in our classrooms was similar to the culture we as a team learn in, I had one staff member who was very enthusiastic about our learning culture, but then stated ‘but are you mandating this is how we teach in the classroom.’ I replied I was not mandating anything other than you ‘know your students the best you can and teach them the best way for them to learn’, but was surprised that she could not make the link between how we worked as a team and wanting to see that in our classrooms.
Your post raises similar questions for me, I want to get out of the way of my teachers, but I don’t want them teaching the same way they always have if it is not the best for their students to take the next step in their learning. I’m asking question about why teachers are reluctant to investigated what is best, is it they are scared to change, don’t want to empower students as independent learners at the cost of their authority as knowledge holder, do we just stick to what we have always known?
Thanks for getting me thinking.
A relentless focus on what works. This should be the mantra of every school.
Agree with lots of this. thankfully I started teaching before a lot of the symptoms described were as serious as they are now. I would be really interested to have a discussion about the solutions though. Recognise lots but not convinced that it has to be as rigid as at Michaela whilst recognising that the videos represent many aspects of god teaching.
Pingback: On teacher workload – Thinking aloud.
Pingback: A guide to this blog | Reading all the Books
Pingback: Have we overcomplicated teaching? | NDHS Blog Spot
Whilst reading this, I began to sound like a member of a church congregation! After almost every sentence I felt impelled to utter an Amen, Praise God, or Hallelujah!
Pingback: Blogs that tell you how to teach better – Thinking about teaching
Pingback: Marking is shit | MrHistoire.com
I would be very interested to see a “unit pack” as you describe it – having spent a lot of my career developing resources on PPT I am interested in how you do so. If you would consider sharing one, I’m sure it would be of interest.
Pingback: The Blogosphere in 2016: Roaring Tigers, Hidden Dragons | Pragmatic Education
Pingback: Keep it simple, stupid – Robert Peal
Pingback: The grass grew greener over the holidays – Mrs O Teaches
Pingback: Assessment in a Knowledge Curriculum | Reading all the Books
Pingback: Booklets | Reading all the Books
Pingback: A Pilgrim in Jerusalem: My Visit to Michaela – A Chemical Orthodoxy
Thank you for your courage, your clarity, and for putting this online for all to see. Much appreciated.