Thread by @edujdw

There's a thread about a comment:
"People forget how awful it was before Gove era when you couldn’t sit pupils in rows, you had to hide away to teach knowledge, there were games everywhere and you’d get down graded for not having enough games" says @Miss_Snuffy 1/14

I'm blocked by her (I don't know why, but it's her absolute right to block whoever she wants for whatever reason, or even no reason).
What the thread reveals is interesting. This thread explores my thoughts on what was said, it is NOT an attack on her. 2/14

Was it really so 'awful' before the Gove era?

I and many, many others dispute the idea that you could not sit pupils in rows or teach 'knowledge' (I did). I also taught in groups, horse shoes etc. As a science teacher the majority of my lessons were in labs so not typical. 3/14

I also taught science in a gym (forces, pendulums etc.) on the field (scale of the universe) in ecological settings etc. All teaching involves 'knowledge' how can it not? Not all teaching involves understanding. 4/14

Since leaving full-time teaching in 1997, I've trained science teachers and primary teachers as well as KS2-3 teachers. I've encouraged trainees to use whatever format is best for delivering the lesson - if it's in rows, didactic information giving, rote learning etc. fine. 5/14

But not ALL lessons MUST be didactic, teacher talk, or answering knowledge questions, rote learning etc.
As a teacher trainer, I've visited 100s of schools, observed over (rough calc) 1000 lessons and externally examined at 6+ universities from Liverpool to Bristol. 6/14

In my career and through external examining, I have NEVER found a training course that INSISTS on every lesson being fun, being about games and 'entertainment'. Overwhelmingly the training has been about delivering KNOWLEDGE and, more importantly, understanding. 7/14

My issue with general comments that paint a dystopian picture of 'what schools were like' is that they invariably have, as an evidence base, anecdote and a biased experience (I should add here that one of my areas of research and teaching is history of education). 8/14

The comments on the thread disturb me. We have people saying that the original comment was certainly TRUE as they recall being trained to only ever teach 'fun' lessons etc. That may well be the case, but it's anecdote not evidence. 9/14

Others say, yes it's definitely true because they worked in schools where the SLT insisted they delivered fun, engaging lessons not 'didactic knowledge led lessons' for OFSTED etc. This is also likely to be true. 10/14

Here is the issue. If the SLT are insisting on the 'fun lessons' with no rows, all group work and 'bad' teaching - these are not the same people as the 'new' teachers who claim it was what they were 'trained' to do. 11/14

So who was 'insisting'? Was it the NQTs? Given they were the 'novices' and the SLT in their schools were likely 10+ maybe 20+ years into the job, did NQTs have that level of power in schools? Or was it just the SLT insisting? 12/14

If it was the SLT insisting are they REALLY being influenced by the university providers? I doubt a single trainee I taught in 2000 is still insisting and being influenced by what I taught them, they are PROFESSIONALS. 13/14

What we train our teachers to be is to be PROFESSIONALS which means being critical. That means questioning, that means NOT 'blindly doing what you are told'. It means doing what is best for your pupils in the context in which you find yourself teaching them. 14/14