Effective Papers For learning

English teachers - help me out with this one. I finally got a chance this week to have a good look at the F Tier AQA English Language paper. It was basically what we were expecting, and the questions looked reasonable on the whole, but I'm baffled by question 4. For the uninitiated, this question asks students to 'compare the ways that presentational features are used for effect' in two non-fiction sources. The sources this year were a page from an information book about the Titanic, aimed at children, and a pared down and adapted version of this article  about a brother and sister who survived a recent boating accident. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/26/brother-sister-swim-boat-sinks My confusion stems from the fact that to me, it seems utterly bereft of meaningful presentational features - on the paper insert that the students get, most of the presentational conventions of the genuine website are removed, so there are no comments, share buttons, different colou...

There have been some fantastic blogs appearing recently on what seems a bafflingly marginalised topic in much teacher training and INSET: the techniques and strategies behind constructing clear, effective and memorable explanations. Having taught lower attaining English GCSE groups for the last five years, I've gained plenty of experience in the challenges of constructing effective explanations. Many of the students I've taught have not been well-equipped to independently resolve ambiguity in the explanations that they hear, so I've had to learn to move in the direction of clarity and focus, improving the quality of my explanations in various ways. I don't feel I've got much to add to the increasing body of advice in this area, beyond promoting blogs like this from Andy Tharby on analogy, this  and  this  from David Didau and Tom Sherrington on explanation generally, and this from Alex Quigley on the power of metaphor. What I do have, however,  is some example...

In this post, I'll describe the ways in which my current school (a large comprehensive in Oxford) has tried to use three key principles to underpin and strengthen a culture of professional learning. These interlocking principles were first proposed in a staff meeting in July 2012. Teachers were asked consider the extent to which they reflected their current experience as teachers in the school, at a whole school, faculty, and individual teacher level. Since then, we've used them to guide our approach to organising professional learning, referring to them frequently when planning and delivering INSET,  CPD, procedures and policies. Nearly two years later, this post is an attempt to reflect on the thinking behind the principles, informed by the experience we've gained in attempting to put them into practice. The principles in question are: 1 - as teachers, we are also learners 2 - we focus learning on aspects of practice which make the most difference 3 - we value autonomy an...

The tendency to take risks when preparing lessons is often regarded to be a feature of excellent teaching. The idea that 'great teachers take risks' comes up again and again on blogs, in books, and in discussion. I have to admit that I'm not always clear as to what this actually means in practice. Risk may have gained this glowing reputation because it is associated with lessons and activities that are a bit unusual or left-field, and therefore represent an excitingly creative diversion on the trudge through the school day. It may be that a willingness to innovate and experiment is seen as inherently worthwhile, or  that risk-taking is somehow daringly anti-Ofsted, with the risk-taking teacher functioning as a laudable maverick, cocking a snook (and what a startlingly wonderful expression that is) at a culture of robo-teaching-by-numbers which has swamped us all, Somerset Levels-style, over recent years. There's probably some truth in this - a degree of variety in appr...

Having written a couple of posts focused on the language of leadership, I thought I'd go for the trilogy with a post on perhaps the most contentious phrase currently knocking around in education - the dreaded 'Requires Improvement'. In some ways, I can see what OFSTED were trying to achieve by bringing this wording into their approach. I was no fan of 'Satisfactory', on the basis that it really meant that only some children made progress in the lesson; the truth is that those children tended to be the higher-attaining, literate students from more advantaged homes, who were best able to deal with weak teaching whilst still making progress. I'm happy to accept that this is not, in fact, satisfactory. I'm also attracted to the idea of fostering greater openness and pragmatism in the discussions we have, formally and informally, on the genuine effectiveness of our lessons. If you are a (non-superhuman) practicing teacher, the likelihood is lessons which don'...

So - my attempt at a blog prior to SLTcamp. It's probably the English teacher in me, but on given the theme of 'igniting change', I'm immediately drawn to the language we use, as teachers and as leaders. I remember, for example, talking with one colleague who would repeatedly refer to efforts to improve learning and teaching as a 'crusade', 'a battle' or 'a campaign', with the vaguely sinister militaristic language revealing much about their fundamental conception of what leadership in schools is all about. Other typical examples of the language of leadership include such gems as 'driving change', 'driving up standards' and 'accelerating progress', all of which sound a bit Top Gear for my liking. 'Igniting' change - I'm not sure. Makes me think of... burns, maybe arson. It's a little bit explodey, a bit space-rockety for my liking. It seems to suggest a vision of the leader being the agent which brings ligh...

The penny has dropped for me that it's possible and preferable to discuss the theory and practical implementation of Assessment for Learning without ever using the term itself. Whilst this is, for reasons I'll explain, a step forward, I can't help feeling slightly bereft, carrying as I do a strong sense of gratitude to AFL for helping me improve my own practice . Dumping the jargon seems somehow disloyal; I've been going about it for years, and the idea of never referring to Success Criteria again seems like saying goodbye to an old friend, albeit a friend who seems to confuse everyone and is a bit of a mouthful to keep referencing in training sessions. I must confess to a history of being something of a jargon-apologist (jargologist?), on the basis that we do need names to call stuff, and having a professional lexicon is not necessarily such a bad thing. I recall an entertaining exchange with a colleague who reacted strongly against the use of the word 'coaching...