Gove's US guru warns against too much testing in schools

Roger Titcombe's picture
 92
This short article in the Guardian (29 Dec) is about the profound dangers of Gove's educational ignorance.

The most telling sections are a quote from Gove insisting that pupils must, "first have a sufficient grasp of the basic subject, something best achieved by repeated drilling."

Further clarification is provided by 'a DfE spokeswoman' who speaks of the need to, "hold student's attention and fix concepts in their minds."

In my New Statesman article I refer to the following well known quotation from Vygotsky.

"a concept is more than the sum of certain associative bonds formed by memory, more than a mere mental habit; it is a genuine and complex act of thought that cannot be taught by drilling, but can only be accomplished when the child’s mental development has itself reached the requisite level"

Gove's statement and that of the DfE, with its notion of 'fixing a concept in the mind' are pure Skinner behaviourism, long discredited by mainstream learning theorists. And there lie the deep roots of what is wrong with the English education system. Those in control have too much power over schools and no understanding or interest in how children learn. To Gove and his forebears, Balls, Blunkett, Blair, Baker and Thatcher it is all straightforward common sense.

As a science teacher in the early1980s the science department staff workroom of my comprehensive school would routinely be alive with discussions about how to get students to understand difficult concepts in science and all the teachers were familiar with the learning theories of the time. There was (and still is on the increasingly rare occasions such debate takes place) consensus about the developmental nature of cognition in the learner and the stage nature of its growth. From Piaget we get a combination of age related growth of cognitive sophistication combined with further growth resulting from the experiences of learning and the cognitive dissonance arising in the learner as a result of subconsciously matching personal mental schema against real world phenomena and problems. Our science storerooms were packed with the brilliantly designed practical paraphernalia of Nuffield science all designed to confront students with profoundly counter-intuitive personal experiences of (for example) Newton's Laws of Motion. As teachers we knew from years of classroom experience and debate with colleagues the truth of Vygotsky's statement about concept formation and the futility of trying to 'fix a concept in the mind' of a learner' if the cognitive processes of that mind are insufficiently developed to be able to make sense of any concept at that developmental level.

Vygotsky gave us teaching methods for enhancing the cognitive development of learners through structured talk, primarily with peers but also with the teacher. He established the key role of social interaction at a personal level in such cognitive development. Mortimer and Scott further developed this approach at Leeds University as set out in their book, 'Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms', Open University Press 2003.

Of course facts can be 'learned' by drilling but concepts cannot be 'fixed in the mind' by such methods. Familiarity with key facts is of course essential but this is a natural outcome of effective learning not a prerequisite for it. It takes a deeply corrupted exam system to fail to discriminate between shallow and deep learning.

The chief theorists and practitioners in all this are Philip Adey and Michael Shayer (Kings College, London), famous for their 'Cognitive Acceleration' teaching strategies developed through more than 30 years of outstanding work, all largely ignored by successive governments as 'barmy theories' or 'complicated nonsense'. The result in 2012 is, bad education captured by international tests like PISA and others, and the title of the new book by Philip Adey and Justin Dillon (Ed), Open University Press 2012. This really is a brilliant and highly recommended read.

And the point of this post? To bemoan the substitution of debate about how to develop concept formation and enable students to comprehend and manipulate difficult ideas, with 101 variations of 'business-and-management-babble' given credence by the stupid imposition of a statistically nonsensical league table driven competitive market onto the English education system.

I make no apologies for my science teacher background, but as Adey and Shayer showed throughout their careers and as described in their book, 'Learning Intelligence', Open University Press 2002, developmental approaches work and are applicable to all subjects and to students of all abilities. We can and should argue the technicalities and contributions of other learning theorists but what I have set out here is foundation, mainstream learning theory, increasing rarely surfacing in English education politics, but clearly understood in the countries whose education systems are leaving ours behind as we drown in the tedium of reinvented drill and practise behaviourism.

An appreciation of the Principle of Archimedes, although also profoundly counter-intuitive and widely misunderstood, is essential to the design of iron ships, so why is it OK for Gove and his like to redesign our education system from the standpoint of free market dogma and the comparable educational ignorance bequeathed by New Labour?
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Leonard James's picture
Sat, 05/01/2013 - 22:00

"I worked in a sink school in a deprived area. The maths department was failing because the teachers had been forced to used traditional teaching techniques with classes with severe behaviour problems and wide spreads of ability. It was a disaster. You can’t get kids who are severely disaffected to sit down and shut up through lessons many of them find too easy and many more will never understand."

The problem isn't traditional teaching it is behaviour and mixed ability classes.

"I transformed thing and re-engaged the kids because I did a lot of teaching in ways which were meaningful for them."

Remind me what it was you did.

"Children who come from our most deprived homes and estates do that especially in the kind of circumstance I was working in where virtually all the students from functional homes had moved to other schools."

Poverty does not cause poor behaviour.

"Teachers learn to understand the particular ways in which students step over boundaries and to read what they mean."

It means the discipline system in the school is non existent and they misbehave because they can get away with it.

"The problems came and continue to come when idiots who have absolutely no idea what really good teaching is like come and judge teaching according to their experiences of what is best practice in schools where many of the children have supportive families and most children arrive well nourished and rested. They often give stupid directions which cause horrific behaviour problems."

You know it is funny the only directions I ever get are identical to Janet's.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 05/01/2013 - 23:48

"Remind me what it was you did."

Which aspect of what I did interests you?

"Poverty does not cause poor behaviour."

Indeed. But where students have not slept because they've been up all night with family issues going on, where they are not properly nourished and they live in cultures of substance abuse and where their role models at home and in their community are seriously dysfunctional poor behaviour is likely to occur.

"It means the discipline system in the school is non existent and they misbehave because they can get away with it."

No it doesn't. It means the discipline system is more complex than it is many other schools and is not always transparent to outsiders with no experience of working in similar situations.

"You know it is funny the only directions I ever get are identical to Janet’s."

I don't understand your comment. I mean the kinds of directions where HMIs demand withdrawal facilities be shut down, anyone who objects is removed from post and then all hell breaks loose from the kids who needed the withdrawal facilities. What did you mean?

Leonard James's picture
Sat, 05/01/2013 - 20:52

Roger (no reply button)

"Now you really are worrying me. How do you know what would happen in “other schools”?."

Clearly you haven't noticed that there is a behaviour crisis in British schools.

"You couldn’t be more wrong about this. How many other schools have you taught in? If you really believe this then the answer is ‘not enough’."

I'm sensing an appeal to authority here - do you have any non anecdotal evidence to back this up?

"I now have to tell you very firmly that “rules and punishing students who beak them” is not a learning strategy."

I don't think I suggested otherwise.

"It is a managing behaviour strategy and one that, when deployed in the absence of effective teaching, not only doesn’t work, but makes student behaviour still less likely to result in any effective learning."

Are you suggesting that a dysfunctional class is more likely to learn than a well behaved class with a weak teacher?

"Punishments can certainly affect behaviour (often in unpredictable ways) but they can never result in learning except in the shallow behaviourist sense of learning how to avoid being punished. How does this learning through punishment work? Do you need mild punishment to get kids to learn easy stuff like, say, chemical symbols for elements, but really heavy punishments to get them to understand say, the mole concept (needed to use chemical equations in a quantitative rather than a descriptive way)? I do hope you are not going to say that ‘rewards’ would be any more effective in achieving the latter."

I thought it was obvious what a teacher means when they talk about classroom rules and punishments for breaking them. Clearly I was wrong as you seem to think that good behaviour is not a requirement for learning and, in some cases, actually has a negative impact.

"Passive obedience is not very effective either. In order to learn, students have to engaged. This means they have to be active in the process and by this I do not mean doing as they are told!"

My point is that Janet's methods will result in many students not being engaged.

"I don’t think you get this do you? This is why learning theory is so important for all teachers to have studied and understood."

I disagree with you. There is a difference between disagreement and not understanding.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 05/01/2013 - 20:57

"Are you suggesting that a dysfunctional class is more likely to learn than a well behaved class with a weak teacher?"

When you say 'a weak teacher' what do you mean Leonard? Do you mean someone who lets students chat off task?

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 05/01/2013 - 21:25

"My point is that Janet’s methods will result in many students not being engaged."

Janet are you there? any comment?

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sat, 05/01/2013 - 21:35

Leonard - How do you judge if a student is engaged? What do you disagree with about theories of learning? Having them? Particular learning theories? How do you think students learn? Behaviour and learning are a chicken and egg scenario - they follow from each other, good and bad. Passive behaviour on the part of students certainly inhibits developmental learning. You talk about classroom rules and punishments. I talk about an interactive learning culture, cooperation, mutual respect and the joy that comes from new levels of understanding experienced at a personal level but arising from social interaction with peers and with a teacher who is respected but not feared. In my school we actively taught our students to be assertive rather than passive or aggressive. Would you have a problem with that?


Leonard James's picture
Sat, 05/01/2013 - 22:39

Roger brought up weak teachers although he used the term ineffective so perhaps a definition from him would be more prudent here.

That said I think one must be very careful about the way one describes a weak teacher because all to often teachers are labelled weak for reasons that are partly or even completely beyond their control. For me weak teachers have one or more of the following traits;

1. They have poor subject knowledge.
2. They are poor communicators especially to children - think Sheldon Cooper.
3. They are incompetent when it comes to managing behaviour - by that I mean they refuse to acknowledge there is a problem in their classroom.

Leonard James's picture
Sat, 05/01/2013 - 22:59

"How do you judge if a student is engaged?"

I don't particularly care for the term as it is woefully misused in education.

"What do you disagree with about theories of learning? Having them? Particular learning theories?"

The theory isn't the problem I am more concerned with some methods that manifest themselves from said theories and the practicalities of using these methods in the classroom.

"Behaviour and learning are a chicken and egg scenario – they follow from each other, good and bad."

I disagree - I don't think students learn anything useful when they are behaving badly in class. Good behaviour is a requirement for any meaningful learning to take place.

"You talk about classroom rules and punishments. I talk about an interactive learning culture, cooperation, mutual respect and the joy that comes from new levels of understanding experienced at a personal level but arising from social interaction with peers and with a teacher who is respected but not feared. In my school we actively taught our students to be assertive rather than passive or aggressive. Would you have a problem with that?"

I don't believe I've advocated a system devoid of anything but rules and punishment so you are comparing your own utopia with a strawman position here.

Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 08:14

Rebecca - it's rather amusing to be told that such methods which worked for me "will result in many students not being engaged". Mine were.

That's not to say I didn't have behavioural problems (but not in the Business Studies lessons of the type described above). My worst problems happened when (a) I was drafted in to fill a gap in a timetable for a subject I knew nothing about, (b) after my probationary year I started at a different school and was given the class that even experienced teachers didn't want to teach, and (c) I was moved to an L-shaped classroom designed for 15 students (I had 33 in one class) with poor accoustics (classroom and school design would be a useful thread I think).

Leonard James's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 10:42

Look these strategies are more or less being described as some kind of panacea of good practice because when some of the obvious practical limitations are pointed out said limitations are dismissed. If all you have to justify your argument is anecdotal evidence then sceptics like myself are hardly going to be convinced - you need to do better than that.

It also doesn't help your cause when you start describing other behaviour problems that shouldn't have arisen or even be rectified if your methods were as good as you think they are. You don't need to know anything about a subject because in your method the students are teaching themselves, you don't need a regular classroom because in your method the students don't need to see you, you don't need space because in your method the students are meant to be close together.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 11:07

Leonard - I taught in a number of excellent comprehensive schools for more than 30 years. What you refer to as utopia was commonly my professional experience. You and I are not going to agree so this is my last post in response to you. Nothing in the teaching methods of the sort I advocate and described by Janet and others are 'progressive', just once mainstream comprehensive school practice proven to work time and again.

We are talking at cross purposes. Of course no learning can take place in disorderly and chaotic classrooms. Of course rows of kids sitting in passive, fearful obedience is better than that, and some useful learning might result, but it simply isn't anything like good enough.

There is indeed a crisis of poor behaviour in English schools.The root causes arise from the numerous perverse incentives and educational ignorance resulting from competition, marketisation, league tables and the imposition of business management - speak babble onto the education system. It is striking that the most successful education systems in the world specifically lack all these perculiar features of the English system.

Us old stagers have seen this before. When the comprehensive system was introduced in the late 60s and 70s the least successful schools were frequently former grammars staffed by teachers with your views. By the mid 80s the mature comprehensive system was completely uncontroversial and a fully accepted feature of the British educational landscape. Of course teaching could have have been improved to become even more effective and this was happening.

I can't believe that any teacher can really believe that engagement is not central to learning.

Nothing can demonstrate more clearly that the system is broken.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 11:16

"these strategies are more or less being described as some kind of panacea of good practice"

by whom?

"because when some of the obvious practical limitations are pointed out said limitations are dismissed."

In cases where you have claimed that something is impossible and I have done it I have pointed this out. You have connected two statements which don't logically connect in the way you have presented them.

"If all you have to justify your argument is anecdotal evidence then sceptics like myself are hardly going to be convinced – you need to do better than that."

I'm also a competent and experienced lecture in education who is happy to contextualise and analyse aspects of pedagogy in the context of any theoretical framework you choose. My experiences are far more than anecdotal because I am so extensively networked through my professional subject associations and have reflected on these teaching strategies extensively with other teachers. However I chose to present specific examples I know well so that you can probe them from which ever angle you choose.

"It also doesn’t help your cause when you start describing other behaviour problems that shouldn’t have arisen or even be rectified if your methods were as good as you think they are."

If serious assaults are happening as a result of the new executive head carrying out HMIs instructions to remove specific withdrawal facilities (which everyone already in the school knew would be the consequence but anyone who says anything is removed from their job) and the new executive head is not taking action against the students perpetrating the assaults, which teaching strategies would you use as a classroom teacher with no back-up to prevent the assaults Leonard?

"You don’t need to know anything about a subject because in your method the students are teaching themselves, you don’t need a regular classroom because in your method the students don’t need to see you, you don’t need space because in your method the students are meant to be close together."

These comments are all ludicrous. They give a great deal of insight into your prejudices and ignorance and none into my teaching.

Leonard James's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 12:49

"Leonard – I taught in a number of excellent comprehensive schools for more than 30 years. What you refer to as utopia was commonly my professional experience."

Anecdotal evidence and an appeal to experience - how about some proper evidence.

"You and I are not going to agree so this is my last post in response to you."

So we're not getting the evidence I asked for earlier then?

"Nothing in the teaching methods of the sort I advocate and described by Janet and others are ‘progressive’, just once mainstream comprehensive school practice proven to work time and again."

I don't recall commenting on your methods (I actually like some of the activities) but I know Janet is influenced by Andreas Schliecher who is widely regarded as an extreme progressive. On a side note it is common for progressive educators to misrepresent traditional pedagogy as little more than learning by rote in a misguided attempt to claim the middle ground - Gradgrind is often cited during these attempts.
"
We are talking at cross purposes. Of course no learning can take place in disorderly and chaotic classrooms. Of course rows of kids sitting in passive, fearful obedience is better than that, and some useful learning might result, but it simply isn’t anything like good enough."

Firstly you described behaviour and learning as a 'chicken and egg' scenario and have subsequently changed your argument. By all means retract and clarify a point made but do not pretend that I have misunderstood what you originally said. Secondly I have not suggested that one should aspire to a situation where children are passive and fearful - this is a strawman position and one commonly attributed, by progressives, to anyone who uses the word 'punishment'.

"There is indeed a crisis of poor behaviour in English schools.The root causes arise from the numerous perverse incentives and educational ignorance resulting from competition, marketisation, league tables and the imposition of business management – speak babble onto the education system. It is striking that the most successful education systems in the world specifically lack all these perculiar features of the English system."

I'd agree that govermental reforms have done little to alleviate the behaviour crisis but many contributary factors to the behaviour crisis pre date the 1988 education act. As far as I'm aware the 'best' education systems in the world also lack the type of pedagogy advocated by Janet and Rebecca. In fact Janet even provided evidence on another thread that traditional pedagogy is alive and well in Singapore - this was a system that Janet originally claimed to be more progressive than the UK.

"Us old stagers have seen this before. When the comprehensive system was introduced in the late 60s and 70s the least successful schools were frequently former grammars staffed by teachers with your views."

I don't recall being particularly expicit about my views aside from my belief that rules and punishments for breaking them are needed in schools if learning is to take place and that it is easier become skilful at a topic if you know a lot about it. Are these things really that controversial to anyone aside from those who place no value on knowledge and therefore authority figure who have accumulated that knowledge?

"I can’t believe that any teacher can really believe that engagement is not central to learning."

My issue with engagement is that it is misused in education to the point where it has become one of those management terms you claim to disagree with. The worst manifestation of this is where 'engagement' is confused with 'enjoyment' or worse 'entertainment'.

"Nothing can demonstrate more clearly that the system is broken."

The regime frequently uses the term 'engagement' as a means to blame teachers and label them incompetent - perhaps you ought to reconsider your own use of the term unless you want be considered part of the regime you claim to despise.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 13:25

Leonard the problems with this conversation is that you have asserted universal truths.

In response to that some of us have supplied examples which contradict your conclusions being universal truths. These counter-examples are not designed to say your assertions or experiences are not valid. They are designed to say that they don't have universal validity.

You have responded to us by claiming that we are claiming universal validity and attacking us based on this incorrect assumption.

I don't know about your other respondents but I find claims of universal validity of best practice to be fundamentally naive. It's not something I engage with. Even at deeper levels of pedagogical theory which provide robust, widespread and long term insight of the kind which has been repeatedly used successfully to generate new good practice I don't claim universality. I think it's best to challenge and contextualise all assertions and am at ease with people doing that to me.

Leonard James's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 12:05

Rebecca (no reply button)

by whom?

Let me get this straight you don't think the sort of teaching methods you have been talking about, you know the ones that even get the most dysfunctional of children inspired, represent a panacea of good practice?

"In cases where you have claimed that something is impossible and I have done it I have pointed this out. You have connected two statements which don’t logically connect in the way you have presented them."

An two logical fallacies for the price of one - I haven't claimed anything is impossible (strawman) and just because something has worked for you doesn't mean it will work in even the majority of situations (anecdotal evidence). Anyway Judging by your earlier comments I'm doubtful that you and I have the same opinions about what good learning is.

"I’m also a competent and experienced lecture in education who is happy to contextualise and analyse aspects of pedagogy in the context of any theoretical framework you choose. My experiences are far more than anecdotal because I am so extensively networked through my professional subject associations and have reflected on these teaching strategies extensively with other teachers. However I chose to present specific examples I know well so that you can probe them from which ever angle you choose."

And we move from one logical fallacy (anecdotal evidence) to another (appeal to experience). You've got nothing credible at all to back any of this up have you?

"If serious assaults are happening as a result of the new executive head carrying out HMIs instructions to remove specific withdrawal facilities (which everyone already in the school knew would be the consequence but anyone who says anything is removed from their job) and the new executive head is not taking action against the students perpetrating the assaults, which teaching strategies would you use as a classroom teacher with no back-up to prevent the assaults Leonard?"

You do realise that I was referring to Janet's experiences and not yours right? What you describe is unacceptable and you should have contacted your union or the police if the head repeatedly failed to deal with the assaults.

"These comments are all ludicrous. They give a great deal of insight into your prejudices and ignorance and none into my teaching."

Again I was replying to Janet here - I lost track about you did in the classroom when you contradicted yourself about off task chatting being a good thing for deeper learning and later said that you drew a line over students who do not complete enough work. I assume that you also realise personal insults also represent a logical fallacy - that makes four in one post.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 12:25

"Let me get this straight you don’t think the sort of teaching methods you have been talking about, you know the ones that even get the most dysfunctional of children inspired, represent a panacea of good practice?"

No. I think it represents one form of current good practice.

Leonard, instead of relentlessly trying to discredit what I say, why don't you say something about what you consider to be good teaching instead?

Leonard James's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 14:45

"No. I think it represents one form of current good practice."

Which begs the question why are these other forms of current good practice never mentioned in the first place?

"Leonard, instead of relentlessly trying to discredit what I say, why don’t you say something about what you consider to be good teaching instead?"

Good teaching leads to children becoming smarter.

I am a systems thinker and therefore advocate the prescription of methods by people who are actually doing the work - as long as the methods employed are ethical, morally sound and based on knowledge of the system and the work I have little complaint with what happens in individual schools. How could I when I know nothing about said schools.

What does annoy me is when people who have no knowledge of a particular system start telling people what they should and shouldn't be doing. It is bad enough that we have senior leaders in schools who are so removed from the work they do not teach themselves. It is even worse when we have large numbers of consultants, gurus, inspectors and armchair experts who have long left the classroom or were never in it in the first place lecturing teachers about their work.

John Finney's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 13:26

We really need concrete examples of classroom transactions. Has there ever been an example of one on this website? Here is one. So what do you think Rebecca, Leonard et al?

A Year 9 class are asked to enter the music room in silence. It is not set up in its usual horse shoe arrangement of chairs but instead with two rows facing each other. There is to be no speaking.

The class are intrigued. Each instrument has a card with a simple musical motif written on it. The teacher draws students into playing one by one with the rhythm to be played tapped on the instrument.

An ensemble performance emerges. New motives, effects and compositional devices are introduced through the teacher’s tacit messaging. Small ensemble textures are contrasted with large, dense with fragile and intricate with simple. There are solos and duets. New musical relationships are made. After thirty minutes the teacher brings the music to a close and tells the class that they have performed a piece of minimalist music.

The class are asked to write about what they felt. What was it like? What characterised ‘minimalist music’? ‘Miss, I could write for ever’, says one student. Five minutes is sufficient for most. An open forum for discussion follows and students are asking the questions and telling each other and their teacher about the conventions of minimalism that they had engaged with.

Where does this music come from? Who plays it? Tell us more about it Miss. The teacher shows a DVD of Steve Reich’s Dolly the Sheep. The students are again intrigued. The subject matter seems to connect with their interest in human life, human existence, other human beings. Students come to see scope for their own composing.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 13:34

Personally I love it.

But for it to be considered to be good practice not only the students but also the wider school context have to accept it and support it (I am assuming student enjoyment and engagement which seems to exist given your description).

The teacher is more likely to achieve this engagement and support if they can clearly express what is being achieved. To do this they need not only the skills you have in describing what is being achieved but also the communication channels through which they can convey their message and there not to be an alternative perception of what should be taking place which is accepted in place of this proposal. Either that or they need nobody outside the classroom to notice what is going on and complain about it.

Leonard James's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 15:34

So what? Why do we need to hear about this lesson?


Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 13:36

I particularly like it that you said it was a year 9 lesson. For me it is particularly relevant to year 9, who are so resistant to getting enthusiastic about and fully engaged in things but who benefit so much when they do.


Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 17:24

It's another concrete example of a lesson which was organised in such a way that the pupils gained a great deal. It's an illustration in the same way as my business studies lesson was also an illustration.

The teacher had to plan the lesson, arrange the room and provide the cards which acted as a stimulus. The teacher has prepared the lesson in such a way that the pupils gain practical experience of minimalist music before being introduced to the theory. The teacher asks relevant questions - so do the pupils. The teacher backs up the theory with a performance on DVD.

The lesson is obviously meticulously planned and would have had far more impact that just telling the pupils the facts about minimalist music.

Dismissing this type of lesson as one that doesn't need space or a teacher is silly. Even dafter is the idea that a teacher planning this type of lesson doesn't need any subject knowledge because the pupils are "teaching themselves".

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 19:38

You don't need to hear about it. This is cyberspace. It's never full and there is free speech for everyone. That's the beauty of it.


Leonard James's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 17:39

"The lesson is obviously meticulously planned and would have had far more impact that just telling the pupils the facts about minimalist music."

Strawman - I haven't suggested that people merely teach facts.

"Dismissing this type of lesson as one that doesn’t need space or a teacher is silly. Even dafter is the idea that a teacher planning this type of lesson doesn’t need any subject knowledge because the pupils are “teaching themselves”."

Strawman - I haven't dismissed this lesson in the way you describe. It is clear that this lesson needs an expert and a suitable room, if you want to convince me that your lesson needed a bigger room or an expert to lead it then you to articulate what purpose these things would serve.

Leonard James's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 19:47

The contributor specifically asked for my thoughts - maybe you missed it?


Leonard James's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 15:15

"Leonard the problems with this conversation is that you have asserted universal truths."

When?

"In response to that some of us have supplied examples which contradict your conclusions being universal truths. These counter-examples are not designed to say your assertions or experiences are not valid. They are designed to say that they don’t have universal validity."

What universal truths do you think you were contradicting?

"You have responded to us by claiming that we are claiming universal validity and attacking us based on this incorrect assumption."

You are yet to name an alternative methodology, have dismissed any alternative put to you on the basis of anecdotal evidence and only stated that good teaching can take other forms when the obvious pitfalls of your self proclaimed brilliance were pointed out to you.

Also you do realise that it is a logical fallacy to try and win an argument by criticising me instead of responding to the points raised.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 19:37

this kind of thing:

"- There simply isn’t the curriculum time available for many of the extended learning activities you are suggesting.
- Behaviour means that many of these activities are impossible to run effectively with certain groups."

I was responding to you comments by explaining how I have worked in ways which contradict your assertions because I don't think your comments have the kind of universal validity implicit in the way you express them.

I'm not recommending anyone teach in the way I describe at present by the way, unless they are lucky to have an 'ofstedproof head' which is very rare in the schools where these methods are most beneficial.

Leonard James's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 19:44

You do realise that 'many' and 'certain groups' are not words one tends to use when describing 'universal truths'.


Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 20:06

In my work these types of tasks were not bolt on extras Leonard, they were fundamental to my work with students.

"What does annoy me is when people who have no knowledge of a particular system start telling people what they should and shouldn’t be doing. It is bad enough that we have senior leaders in schools who are so removed from the work they do not teach themselves. It is even worse when we have large numbers of consultants, gurus, inspectors and armchair experts who have long left the classroom or were never in it in the first place lecturing teachers about their work."

We are in agreement on that. You keep dismissing other people's experiences of what works for them as being just anecdotes and therefore irrelevant and your behaviour in that respect contradicts your statement which I've quoted.

Leonard James's picture
Sun, 13/01/2013 - 09:02

"In my work these types of tasks were not bolt on extras Leonard, they were fundamental to my work with students."

Not sure what this has to do with your accusations about 'universal truths' which seem to have been dropped in favour of a new line of argument.

"We are in agreement on that. You keep dismissing other people’s experiences of what works for them as being just anecdotes and therefore irrelevant and your behaviour in that respect contradicts your statement which I’ve quoted."

Were the initially presented as something that has 'worked for me'? I would say this clarification only appeared when obvious practical limitations to the methods were pointed out and there is no credible evidence out there to suggest anything beyond that. Which leads us to anecdotal evidence - stating that something is anecdotal is not dismissing said evidence out of hand. What you describe may have actually happened but until you provide stronger evidence that your methods have been successfully used in many other schools I see no reason why they should be presented as anything beyond 'what worked for me'.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 13/01/2013 - 10:35

"“In my work these types of tasks were not bolt on extras Leonard, they were fundamental to my work with students.”

Not sure what this has to do with your accusations about ‘universal truths’ which seem to have been dropped in favour of a new line of argument."

It seemed to me you were exploring the line of discussion that some groupwork and some tasks and teaching methodologies of the type I used may be okay but there wasn't really time for them. So I was clearly stating that that logic was not relevant to my situation. I do understand that it's an important line of reasoning for most teachers.

Perhaps it would help you to identify some of the evidence which endorses the kind of teaching methodologies I was using If I clearly stated that I was using student rather than teacher centered strategies Leonard. This is, for example, what's being done in Finland.

I was using the traditional teaching methodologies which I was taught by the experienced teachers I respected which put the process of establishing a respectful relationship between each child and each teacher at the heart of teaching and learning. There were many subtle arts to this practice which is, to the culture of using universal rigorously implemented laws enforced by punishment to control children before teaching begins, what horse whispering is to horse breaking.

Unfortunately it can take some time to settle a class into this culture during which time there can be disruption and complaints. So it's not a sensible strategy to use today and it's only wise to use it in those schools which have plenty of protection and oversight from their local communities and, ideally, an Ofstedproof head as well as a local university. Secondary schools in challenging circumstances rarely have this level of support.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 16:02

Leodard - When you wish to get your car to move you have to engage the engine with the transmission through the use of the clutch. Without such engagement you can press the accelerator as hard as you like and all you get is alot of noise and a wrecked engine. There is no useful communication or learning outcome without engagement. It takes (at least) two to tango. Without engagement the teacher is talking to himself. This really is my last post in reply to you.


Leonard James's picture
Sun, 06/01/2013 - 17:22

What Janet initially advocated involved very little engagement between the engine and the transmission, using this analogy the car would travel further if the engine and the clutch were engaged all the time.

Also I'm pretty sure that others have said it is the clutch that should make the car go forwards instead of the accelerator - the car would travel a far greater difference if the accelerator was used more.

Leonard James's picture
Sun, 20/01/2013 - 08:34

Rebecca (no reply button)

"It seemed to me you were exploring the line of discussion that some groupwork and some tasks and teaching methodologies of the type I used may be okay but there wasn’t really time for them. So I was clearly stating that that logic was not relevant to my situation. I do understand that it’s an important line of reasoning for most teachers."

I mentioned curriculum time because it is one of many practical reasons why Janet's methods should be avoided by teachers but that was ages ago. I'd sooner you stuck to the issue at hand instead of continually chopping and changing the subject.

"Perhaps it would help you to identify some of the evidence which endorses the kind of teaching methodologies I was using If I clearly stated that I was using student rather than teacher centered strategies Leonard. This is, for example, what’s being done in Finland."

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. The suggestion that I have to waste my time looking for evidence to support your argument then all you are doing is convincing me further that no one on this thread has any evidence to begin with.

"I was using the traditional teaching methodologies which I was taught by the experienced teachers I respected which put the process of establishing a respectful relationship between each child and each teacher at the heart of teaching and learning. There were many subtle arts to this practice which is, to the culture of using universal rigorously implemented laws enforced by punishment to control children before teaching begins, what horse whispering is to horse breaking."

Now I'm completely lost please can you clarify what it is you thought you were doing and what happened when children crossed the line you described earlier on.

"Unfortunately it can take some time to settle a class into this culture during which time there can be disruption and complaints. So it’s not a sensible strategy to use today and it’s only wise to use it in those schools which have plenty of protection and oversight from their local communities and, ideally, an Ofstedproof head as well as a local university. Secondary schools in challenging circumstances rarely have this level of support"

This is an amazing appeal to purity. As you've acknowledged that your contributions are effectively bad ideas in but the most unusual of schools I wonder what the point of them was in the first place?

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 20/01/2013 - 09:52

Are you saying you can't find any evidence of the positive impact of a child centred education on results from the evidence in Finland Leonard? Are you unaware of all the international comparative results?

"As you’ve acknowledged that your contributions are effectively bad ideas in but the most unusual of schools I wonder what the point of them was in the first place?"

I hope it will not always be the case that good teaching and good teachers are relentlessly targeted for 'improvement' by deeply ignorant systems of inspection and political manipulation. Just to be clear, Leonard, the reason why I would not advise people to do what I did is because of those deeply ignorant systems whereby people who have no idea what you're doing come along and pronounce ludicrously ignorant judgements with very damaging consequences. It's no coincidence that regulation has been made accountable to the professional in Finland and that high quality teaching has thrived there, leading to dramatic improvements in results and wider behavioural benefits for students into which I will try to give some insight below.

"Now I’m completely lost please can you clarify what it is you thought you were doing and what happened when children crossed the line you described earlier on."

It's not possible to describe a complex system of interactive behaviours in an post like this. It takes years to learn them and it takes a long time for people who want to know them to get to know them even if they see them in action. But I'll try with one example. Imagine you have a group of students who are becoming noisy and disruptive at a time when you need them to be quiet and cannot give them your full attention to resolve the situation. Some teachers would use sanctions and I would do that in some circumstances. But if one of the children is particularly wound up in a way which indicates that they are unlikely to be able to simply stop misbehaving I'm likely to send that child out of the classroom (even though they may not be the protagonist). I'll then give them a significant amount of time (about 5 mins) to allow their body to calm down and to allow me to shape the lesson so that I can leave the classroom to talk to them properly. When I do that I will, generally, not actually talk to them. I will stand beside them facing in the same direction they face and wait for them to talk, prompting them with my body language if necessary. With minimum interaction I will encourage them to talk through the situation until they come up with appropriate insight into a positive way forward and a way to avoid that situation occurring again. Beyond that I can't really specify what I would do in this post as the variety of insights which may emerge is to great. I was taught to interact with children in this way to ensure, where possible, that they feel able to take responsibility for their own behaviour in ways which prepare them for life beyond my classroom. It also creates an atmosphere in the classroom where students engage positively with sanctions because they know that they are fair and constructive. There are many more subtle strategies of this nature which I was taught. The classroom which emerges tends to appear less ordered to an outsider than one where precise boundaries and rules are being used, especially at the beginning of the academic year if you are settling students into this culture. But it is much more effective in preparing students for real life.

W.r.t particular teaching methodologies I'm talking about rich tasks which are designed to differentiate by output rather than input, applied task which scaffold from the concrete to the visual to the abstract and can therefore engage all students and more traditional study where students progress at the rate where they properly understand material rather than at the rate of the whole class.
Here is a definition of rich tasks: http://nrich.maths.org/5662

I also use traditional class teaching strategies and unison voice and drill some of the time. I start from the teacher when that's the appropriate thing to do for the greatest benefit of me students.

Leonard James's picture
Sun, 20/01/2013 - 22:39

"Are you saying you can’t find any evidence of the positive impact of a child centred education on results from the evidence in Finland Leonard? Are you unaware of all the international comparative results?"

It isn't my job to find evidence for your claims.

"I hope it will not always be the case that good teaching and good teachers are relentlessly targeted for ‘improvement’ by deeply ignorant systems of inspection and political manipulation. Just to be clear, Leonard, the reason why I would not advise people to do what I did is because of those deeply ignorant systems whereby people who have no idea what you’re doing come along and pronounce ludicrously ignorant judgements with very damaging consequences. It’s no coincidence that regulation has been made accountable to the professional in Finland and that high quality teaching has thrived there, leading to dramatic improvements in results and wider behavioural benefits for students into which I will try to give some insight below."

Until recently I thought the deeply ignorant architects of the system you describe were advocating the sort of progressive nonsense described on this site. Perhaps you can point out who, in the system, was suggesting that we all start teaching facts and nothing but facts or whatever it is you think bad teaching is.

"It’s not possible to describe a complex system of interactive behaviours in an post like this. It takes years to learn them and it takes a long time for people who want to know them to get to know them even if they see them in action. But I’ll try with one example. Imagine you have a group of students who are becoming noisy and disruptive at a time when you need them to be quiet and cannot give them your full attention to resolve the situation. Some teachers would use sanctions and I would do that in some circumstances. But if one of the children is particularly wound up in a way which indicates that they are unlikely to be able to simply stop misbehaving I’m likely to send that child out of the classroom (even though they may not be the protagonist). I’ll then give them a significant amount of time (about 5 mins) to allow their body to calm down and to allow me to shape the lesson so that I can leave the classroom to talk to them properly. When I do that I will, generally, not actually talk to them. I will stand beside them facing in the same direction they face and wait for them to talk, prompting them with my body language if necessary. With minimum interaction I will encourage them to talk through the situation until they come up with appropriate insight into a positive way forward and a way to avoid that situation occurring again. Beyond that I can’t really specify what I would do in this post as the variety of insights which may emerge is to great. I was taught to interact with children in this way to ensure, where possible, that they feel able to take responsibility for their own behaviour in ways which prepare them for life beyond my classroom. It also creates an atmosphere in the classroom where students engage positively with sanctions because they know that they are fair and constructive. There are many more subtle strategies of this nature which I was taught. The classroom which emerges tends to appear less ordered to an outsider than one where precise boundaries and rules are being used, especially at the beginning of the academic year if you are settling students into this culture. But it is much more effective in preparing students for real life."

This is just bizarre. Your going to punish students who can behave but aren't and then send a child who is unable to behave at all outside before trying to talk to them after five minutes - why would this work if they are unable to behave? If it does work and, in fact, they are able to behave if they want to then you've just treated your students in an unjust fashion.

"W.r.t particular teaching methodologies I’m talking about rich tasks which are designed to differentiate by output rather than input, applied task which scaffold from the concrete to the visual to the abstract and can therefore engage all students and more traditional study where students progress at the rate where they properly understand material rather than at the rate of the whole class.
Here is a definition of rich tasks: http://nrich.maths.org/5662
I also use traditional class teaching strategies and unison voice and drill some of the time. I start from the teacher when that’s the appropriate thing to do for the greatest benefit of me students."

Before I read the link it is good teaching that isn't to be recommended right?

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 20/01/2013 - 23:41

"It isn’t my job to find evidence for your claims."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

"This is just bizarre. Your going to punish students who can behave but aren’t and then send a child who is unable to behave at all outside before trying to talk to them after five minutes – why would this work if they are unable to behave? If it does work and, in fact, they are able to behave if they want to then you’ve just treated your students in an unjust fashion."
It works because the child has lost control and are in a very emotional state where they cannot instantly regain it. This scares them. I put them out so that they can calm down. I help them get control back. I work with them to deal with the issues in a way which leaves them empowered rather than dealing with the issues myself in a way which leaves them dependent on me. If any student in the situation feels unjustly treated then they know they are welcome to stay and talk to me about that and they will be heard. Hence there is no sense of injustice.

A lot of the strategies I deliberately tried to adopt are ones teachers tend to naturally develop as they become confident and experienced parents.

"Perhaps you can point out who, in the system, was suggesting that we all start teaching facts and nothing but facts or whatever it is you think bad teaching is."

If it appears I'm saying that schools which are "improved" revert to teaching facts then I'm grateful for this opportunity to clarify.

When schools are 'improved' staff are forced to abandon the methods they know work. They are prevented from thinking about the situations they are in, reflecting on them and developing strategies which address them. They are prevented from using strategies which they know will work but which take time to develop. They are forced instead to use strategies dictated by people who aren't there and who don't see the consequences of what they dictate. Those who raise very valid concerns about real consequences of what's going on are removed. Sometimes the external people are intelligent and give good advice but often they have very limited experience and give advice which is wrong for the situation because it came from their experience with different types of schools.

My frustration is therefore with the deprofessionalisation of teachers. I can think of situations where a very structured and tradition curriculum is appropriate and in those situations it would be wrong for somebody who does not have a great deal of relevant experience in such a situation and who is not around to see the consequences of what they dictate. But in general it is happening the other way round. Very highly skilled teachers of the kind I have deep respect for and from whom I have learned much are being cleared out and then misrepresented in whichever way suits the purposes of those left in charge.

"Before I read the link it is good teaching that isn’t to be recommended right?"
It's okay in schools which are 'ofstedproof'. By that I mean that the head is very firmly established and all results are ahead of target. Staff who are on their way to retirement and who don't care about protecting their jobs are usually okay with it.

Please don't fall into the trap of universalising the phrase 'good teaching'. I'm only suggesting my teaching was one type of good teaching which worked in this context. There are many types of good teaching but in my experience the very highest quality of teaching only occurs when teachers and schools have sufficient professional freedom to adapt, innovate and respond appropriately to the needs of the children in front of them.

Leonard James's picture
Sat, 26/01/2013 - 09:55

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment"

This appears to be a reference article about PISA - it isn't evidence that child centered education works in Finland.

"It works because the child has lost control and are in a very emotional state where they cannot instantly regain it. This scares them. I put them out so that they can calm down. I help them get control back. I work with them to deal with the issues in a way which leaves them empowered rather than dealing with the issues myself in a way which leaves them dependent on me. If any student in the situation feels unjustly treated then they know they are welcome to stay and talk to me about that and they will be heard. Hence there is no sense of injustice."

So we have kid A: naughty and throws temper tantrums and kid B: naughty.

As far as I can tell kid A is lavished with attention and despite being "unable to behave" eventually manages to behave and becomes independent of you. Kid B gets a punishment and if they don't think that is particularly fair they can talk to you about it after the lesson. Ignoring that one only needs to throw a tantrum to avoid punishment it seems wholly implausible that you can convince kid B they have been treated justly.

"If it appears I’m saying that schools which are “improved” revert to teaching facts then I’m grateful for this opportunity to clarify."

Then I'm not sure why the educational hierarchy keep coming up - surely the initial debate revolved around claims that various brands of extreme progressivism work.

"When schools are ‘improved’ staff are forced to abandon the methods they know work."

Look surely if a school is in need of 'improvement' the methods clearly aren't working.

"They are prevented from thinking about the situations they are in, reflecting on them and developing strategies which address them. They are prevented from using strategies which they know will work but which take time to develop. They are forced instead to use strategies dictated by people who aren’t there and who don’t see the consequences of what they dictate. Those who raise very valid concerns about real consequences of what’s going on are removed. Sometimes the external people are intelligent and give good advice but often they have very limited experience and give advice which is wrong for the situation because it came from their experience with different types of schools."

From what I gather a lot of this runs contradictory to your own experiences. Wasn't your old school put in special measures, then the parachuted in super head banned withdrawals and forced mixed ability teaching on you, this required you to develop miraculous methods of child centered learning which caused all of your previously unmanageable cohort to attain results higher than their target grades? Aren't these the very methods that, until very recently, have been presented as good practice?

"My frustration is therefore with the deprofessionalisation of teachers. I can think of situations where a very structured and tradition curriculum is appropriate and in those situations it would be wrong for somebody who does not have a great deal of relevant experience in such a situation and who is not around to see the consequences of what they dictate. But in general it is happening the other way round. Very highly skilled teachers of the kind I have deep respect for and from whom I have learned much are being cleared out and then misrepresented in whichever way suits the purposes of those left in charge."

Then you no doubt agree with me that a body that is overwhelmingly made up of non professionals (such as the LSN) really ought to stop trying to advocate certain types of pedagogy.

"It’s okay in schools which are ‘ofstedproof’."

So no school then.

"By that I mean that the head is very firmly established and all results are ahead of target. Staff who are on their way to retirement and who don’t care about protecting their jobs are usually okay with it."

It is amazing how synonymous progressive education is with teachers who don't give a shit.

"Please don’t fall into the trap of universalising the phrase ‘good teaching’. I’m only suggesting my teaching was one type of good teaching which worked in this context. There are many types of good teaching but in my experience the very highest quality of teaching only occurs when teachers and schools have sufficient professional freedom to adapt, innovate and respond appropriately to the needs of the children in front of them."

It isn't me who is going around describing what is clearly child centered learning as good practice and until recently I don't recall you presenting your own methods as merely 'something which worked for me'.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 26/01/2013 - 12:01

"This appears to be a reference article about PISA – it isn’t evidence that child centered education works in Finland."

Did you not look as far as the table of results Leonard? I really understand which part of the picture you are not seeing or are failing to understanding.

"it seems wholly implausible that you can convince kid B they have been treated justly."

That's because you've never seen the evidence. I have, which is why I know it's possible.

"Then I’m not sure why the educational hierarchy keep coming up – surely the initial debate revolved around claims that various brands of extreme progressivism work."

? not as far as I'm aware.

"From what I gather a lot of this runs contradictory to your own experiences. Wasn’t your old school put in special measures, then the parachuted in super head banned withdrawals and forced mixed ability teaching on you, this required you to develop miraculous methods of child centered learning which caused all of your previously unmanageable cohort to attain results higher than their target grades? Aren’t these the very methods that, until very recently, have been presented as good practice?"

The need for mixed ability teaching was created firstly by the fact that some year groups had become very small (only 3 classes) so the spans of attainment in each class were so wide that mixed ability strategies were very beneficial. Then in the final year of the school we only had three year groups and I was the only specialist maths teacher. So the students (including year 11) had to be setted together for everything - it's wasn't possible to timetable them into different sets for different subjects. They were setted for literacy which created some sets which were fully mixed ability for maths and some sets which were mixed ability but without a top end.

Given that we had mixed ability classes it was wisest to use mixed ability teaching strategies rather than the kinds of strategies I would have used with classes which were not mixed ability. It wasn't some kind of weird, wacky extremist passion. It was just a practical thing. I couldn't teaching mixed ability classes with extreme behavioural problems using traditional techniques unless I had a heck of a lot of back-up and I had virtually none. Other teachers had tried and that was why the school was in special measures even though they were very good and dedicated teachers and would have been successful in most circumstances.

"It is amazing how synonymous progressive education is with teachers who don’t give a shit."

.... in the tabloid media and in the minds of politicians, given the difference between this fantasy and the reality.

"It isn’t me who is going around describing what is clearly child centered learning as good practice and until recently I don’t recall you presenting your own methods as merely ‘something which worked for me’."

Child centred education has worked for others too. I've never suggested is should be forced on anyone. My position is that it shouldn't be discounted as a possibility. For most people it's just part of their thinking about teaching - something they focus on at times and in certain contexts.

Leonard James's picture
Mon, 28/01/2013 - 06:22

"Did you not look as far as the table of results Leonard? I really understand which part of the picture you are not seeing or are failing to understanding."

A results table doesn't prove that child centered learning is the cause of Finland's success.

"That’s because you’ve never seen the evidence. I have, which is why I know it’s possible."

What evidence?

"? not as far as I’m aware."

I assume you missed the bit in the OP about drilling and social interaction.

"The need for mixed ability teaching was created firstly by the fact that some year groups had become very small (only 3 classes) so the spans of attainment in each class were so wide that mixed ability strategies were very beneficial. Then in the final year of the school we only had three year groups and I was the only specialist maths teacher. So the students (including year 11) had to be setted together for everything – it’s wasn’t possible to timetable them into different sets for different subjects. They were setted for literacy which created some sets which were fully mixed ability for maths and some sets which were mixed ability but without a top end.
Given that we had mixed ability classes it was wisest to use mixed ability teaching strategies rather than the kinds of strategies I would have used with classes which were not mixed ability. It wasn’t some kind of weird, wacky extremist passion. It was just a practical thing. I couldn’t teaching mixed ability classes with extreme behavioural problems using traditional techniques unless I had a heck of a lot of back-up and I had virtually none. Other teachers had tried and that was why the school was in special measures even though they were very good and dedicated teachers and would have been successful in most circumstances."

I don't recall any caveats about practicality or any suggestion that child centered learning be used alongside more traditional methods in the early exchanges here. To begin with Janet didn't advocate any teaching at all.

"…. in the tabloid media and in the minds of politicians, given the difference between this fantasy and the reality."

I am neither.

"Child centred education has worked for others too. I’ve never suggested is should be forced on anyone. My position is that it shouldn’t be discounted as a possibility. For most people it’s just part of their thinking about teaching"

Then there ought to be plenty of evidence out there that supports what you are all saying. Your clarification also seems to be a departure on what was happening earlier - you know the bit where child centred pedagogy was presented in isolation as good practice in a discussion thread about the relative benefits of teaching methods.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Mon, 28/01/2013 - 13:39

"A results table doesn’t prove that child centered learning is the cause of Finland’s success."

So you're accepting the quality of what's happening in Finland but you don't know how it's being achieved?

Setting by attainment is banned in Finland. The vast majority of schools are small, so you have wide attainment spans in most classes even if there's an attempt to let students study different courses. Therefore you get child centred teaching for the same reasons I had to deliver it.

Here in Cumbria we had (I don't know if it still exists) a support network for the small schools where we met to puzzle out how to cope with the same issues. It was understood that would couldn't use teacher centred teaching in the same way large schools could. This truth has dry irony in that some of the secondary free schools are tiny and are insisting they will teach traditional fact based learning - a comment born of lack of experience.

Beyond that - when Pasi Sahlberg spoke in the Houses of Parliament he spoke particularly about how inspired he was by the progressive movement in the UK when he was doing his PhD here many years ago and how he took the ideas back to Finland and developed them. I know some of the people he met. One of them came and taught me how to teach mixed ability sets properly when I had to learn.

"What evidence?"

What actually happens to children when I do this.

"I don’t recall any caveats about practicality or any suggestion that child centered learning be used alongside more traditional methods in the early exchanges here. To begin with Janet didn’t advocate any teaching at all."

Comments are what they are. They are intended to express something rather than to be a perfect description of everything the reader might want to know. If you want to know more just ask.

"I am neither."

You clearly have some concerns about mixed ability teaching. Where have your concerns come from?

"Then there ought to be plenty of evidence out there that supports what you are all saying."

Have you never found any? Perhaps you could consider studying a further course on education?

"Your clarification also seems to be a departure on what was happening earlier – you know the bit where child centred pedagogy was presented in isolation as good practice in a discussion thread about the relative benefits of teaching methods."

I don't particularly remember. I write a lot. I'm rather concerned that this conversation is setting up a divide between traditional and child centred pedagogies which I think used to exist due to departments needing to be configured one way or the other but ceased to exist when we started to get products like MyMaths. I think teachers should seek to develop a toolbox of different teaching styles and strategies so that they can adapt to do what is most effective in the circumstances they are in for achieving what they want to achieve at the time. That's what I did.

Leonard James's picture
Sat, 09/02/2013 - 00:38

"Setting by attainment is banned in Finland. The vast majority of schools are small, so you have wide attainment spans in most classes even if there’s an attempt to let students study different courses. Therefore you get child centred teaching for the same reasons I had to deliver it."

Slippery slope and false cause. Even if all forms of streaming were banned completely in Finland (they aren't) it doesn't mean a) child centered learning is happening and b) that child centered learning is the cause of Finland's success.

"Here in Cumbria we had (I don’t know if it still exists) a support network for the small schools where we met to puzzle out how to cope with the same issues. It was understood that would couldn’t use teacher centred teaching in the same way large schools could."

Black and white argument. Just because child centered learning was the only perceived solution for you doesn't mean it will be for others.

"This truth has dry irony in that some of the secondary free schools are tiny and are insisting they will teach traditional fact based learning – a comment born of lack of experience."

An appeal to experience. Four logical fallacies and counting.

"Beyond that – when Pasi Sahlberg spoke in the Houses of Parliament he spoke particularly about how inspired he was by the progressive movement in the UK when he was doing his PhD here many years ago and how he took the ideas back to Finland and developed them. I know some of the people he met. One of them came and taught me how to teach mixed ability sets properly when I had to learn"

The big problem here is the difference between what the progressive movement is and what the progressive movement says it is. There are, for example, members of this website who consider Singapore to have a progressive education system.

"What actually happens to children when I do this."

More anecdotal evidence makes it logical fallacy number five.

"Comments are what they are. They are intended to express something rather than to be a perfect description of everything the reader might want to know. If you want to know more just ask."

We're not talking about a trivial point here. The post was about good practice in a lesson - surely it reasonable to assume that if Janet did any teaching she would have said so.

"You clearly have some concerns about mixed ability teaching. Where have your concerns come from?"

My concern is that I am yet to meet a progressive educator address the obvious pitfalls of what they are proposing.

"Have you never found any? Perhaps you could consider studying a further course on education?"

You are making the claims so the burden of proof lies with you. What is more reasonable here you providing some evidence that you presumably know of or me quitting my job and going to university to find the evidence for you?

"I don’t particularly remember. I write a lot. I’m rather concerned that this conversation is setting up a divide between traditional and child centred pedagogies which I think used to exist due to departments needing to be configured one way or the other but ceased to exist when we started to get products like MyMaths. I think teachers should seek to develop a toolbox of different teaching styles and strategies so that they can adapt to do what is most effective in the circumstances they are in for achieving what they want to achieve at the time. That’s what I did."

You don't need to remember but again what your saying is a departure from the earlier claims that were made on the thread.

Pages

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.