Periodically, someone is appointed to a role with some kind of authority, be it in the DfE, Ofsted, a panel, whatever. Every time this happens, EduTwitter goes berserk. 1/
When, for example, the Ofsted review panels on curriculum was announced, I was informed that I was not appropriate for the job. People who have never met me, interacted with me, seen my CV, were telling me I was the wrong fit. 2/
The same happened yesterday with the Teach First fellow. People who had never heard of him, never heard of the role, not seen the job description, not seen the CV, not been at interview...all 100% sure he was the wrong person. 3/
Common themes:
Ad hom: calling him "posh boy"
Guilt by association: "we hate Teach First so..."
Political issues: he's a tory, so no good. Sorry, are we surprised that Conservatives appoint Conservatives? They would be mad not to. 4/
Whataboutery: "we've got so many experts I can't believe they didn't appoint me or my mates or pick up the phone to me or my mates..."
5/
The arrogance here is off the charts. You haven't got a clue, so don't opine.
It doesn't even help your cause. Nobody is going to listen to whining from a position of ignorance, so what do you achieve short of virtue signalling? Not a lot, I imagine.
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a strong advocate of mini-whiteboards (MWBs). Brief thread explaining the WHENWHYBY: when are they useful, why are they useful and how do you make them useful:
First, a CAVEAT
This is a thread. Not a full blown training session. It contains nuggets, no more. Towards the end of the thread I will signpost more content. If you are planning on delivering training from scratch based on this thread or building policy, please don't.
>
Ok, so first the WHEN
There are lots of occasions throughout a lesson or teaching cycle where MWBs can be useful, but the real biggie is any time you are checking for understanding. There are two major phases when you do this:
Prerequisite knowledge check before you introduce new content.
Check for understanding (or my preferred term - check and consolidate) after you have introduced new content (or retaught old content).
That's right, but it isn't a good argument. Why not? READ ON
First, because tools are - almost by definition - designed for different jobs. A screwdriver is good for driving screws, and bad for hammering nails.
If you are hammering nails with a screwdriver and someone says "don't do that", you wouldn't say "it's just a tool, it depends how it's used."
>
Second, because even amongst tools designed for the same job, some are better than others. My phone camera is designed to take photos on the go, as is a mirrorless Hasselblad. One is better than the other (it's the Hasselblad). Even if you are pedantic and say "well a phone camera is better for sharing" ok, so some phone cameras are better than others. Done.
Turn and Talk is very popular right now, I see it in most lessons I go to.
HOWEVER, in 95% of cases I watch it and think "that lesson would have been better without it to be honest"
Why? 👇
When there's a T&T in play, I almost always see at least one of:
Minimum 25% of the class just not doing it
Finishing well early
Doing it for something where everyone knows the answer
Doing it for something where nobody knows the answer
Melding into just chatting really quickly
Leaders ask for it, and expect it, but nobody can ever tell me the exact parameters of when they use it and why. Is it for checking understanding? Is it for developing thinking? Is it for generic oracy? Is it for students to practise consolidating new vocabulary?
In the past weeks, I've seen a number of people make snide remarks about researchEd and how its presenters and organisers don't produce research. People asking for the papers they've written and stuff like that. This is simultaneously stupid and a fantastic cause for hope.
Read on >
It is stupid because researchEd is not an organisation dedicated to producing research. Instead, it is about translating, implementing and disseminating research findings. Let's be clear, the people making this complaint are not serious. BUT
>
There has long been a big gap between "research" and "practice." Ok, so we have a research paper about group work, or oracy, or retrieval practice or whatever - great. How do I take those findings and actually apply them in my context?
A little story about behaviour, relationships, expectations and consequences:
A while back, I taught a really tough Year 11 class. There weren't many of them in the room. Their attendance was sporadic. They hated science, and weren't doing very well.
>
The students in there were very challenging. Lots of needs, lots of difficult home lives etc. Not straightforward.
Individually, I got on extremely well with every single one of them. I did my lunch duty near where they hung out and we used to chat and have jokes and stuff. Relationships were strong.
>
The lessons were tough. I had to work damn hard to keep them engaged and attentive. And there were occasional high level blow-outs.
Nothing abnormal for anyone who's taught in a standard challenging secondary.