For interest: a questionnaire on teachers’ perceptions of race used in a previous research project. 

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/MC7VSYQ

As edutwitter is debating race, this is a survey Kieran Dhunna Halliwell and I used in a project we have completed on teachers’ perceptions of race, culture and diversity. The project has finished and we are currently writing it up. Whilst acknowledging the limitations of social media, we’d be interested in the response on edutwitter although the analysis can not form part of our project. It’s a short anonymous survey

A White Man in the London Stadium- reflections on watching sport

My first ever major sporting event was an England v West Indies one day international at Edgbaston in 1976. It was possibly the most excited I’ve ever felt and I made my dad take me to the ground ridiculously early especially as it had just rained for the first time in that summer of drought. We were almost the first people in the ground and sat for no particular reason on the old Edgbaston hill. My memory is that by the time the match started we were amongst a large group of West Indies supporters celebrating a team as good as any the game has produced. England were beaten that day as they had been all summer. 


My Dad had paid £2 each for our tickets which was a high price for mid-70s sport and about £10 in today’s prices.

In 2004, almost thirty years later I watched the first day of an England v West Indies test match at Edgbaston. The difference in the crowd was unavoidable as there was hardly any black people at Edgbaston that day despite 7% of Birmingham’s population coming from Black Carribbean communities. There was no atmosphere and I left underwhelmed by the cricket and the occasion for which I had paid £40.

As always, there are a whole range of factors involved in why people behave in certain ways. It was hard to escape the conclusion that as with football, people have been priced out of sport. Black communities where, irrespective of academic achievement in school, people face discrimination at every level of the labour market do not have the disposable income to pay extortionate ticket prices for sport. 

Last week I was privileged to be in the London Stadium. It was birthday present to my son who wanted to see Bolt run. Through a ballot and at a cost of £75 each, we had secured tickets. There were a group of supporters in Jamaican team colours sat together and a few individuals but the crowd that cheered Bolt’s entrance and chanted his name was overwhelmingly white. 

Next week the West Indies return to Edgbaston. The first couple of days are sold out but I doubt whether the black Carribbean communities of Birmingham will be represented. In response to discrimination, the colonial legacy and cost, black culture has moved on. 

Sports have developed in all sorts of positive ways since I began watching but success has come at the cost of pricing a significant proportion of the population out of participation as fans. Sport and society have in many ways become the poorer for the developments.

Happy Talk: for how long should a teacher speak during a lesson?

One of the recurring issues on educational Twitter feeds is the causes of, and implications for, any  criticism of the time teachers spend talking.The frequency with which the debate reoccurs has led me to write this post based on the obvious point that,when teachers talk, it is quality not quantity that matters.

Whether at the hands of inspectors or Senior Leaders, negative comments about the length of introductions/whole class teaching are a potential threat to the ability of teachers to instruct, explain, question and model new concepts. For that reason, discussion about teacher talk is often framed in an ideological debate about ‘chalk and talk’  traditional teaching methods.  The purpose of the discussion appears to be the promotion of direct instruction as a strategy that is under threat. Tweets are often expressed in terms of surprise and/or indignation especially since OfSTED’s current framework does not inc!ude any pedagogical judgement with reference to time spent talking. One of the reasons why the issue reoccurs is that negative comments about the time teachers talk share the same roots as the ideology still driving wider eduction policy because the claim to base the judgement of someone’s teaching solely on scientifically measureable evidence offers both the inspectorate and policymakers protection from accusations of fallibility. Therefore the measurement of teacher talk by time can be seen in the context of other elements of reform such as the use of randomly controlled trials and the EEF toolkit. The problem with the demand for quantitative  evidence to support any aspect of pedagogy is that teaching is too complex a process to be solely judged by that which is easily measured, explained, held accountable, commodified, marketed and sold. Evidence-based practice is too important to be reduced to the empirical. The success of teaching generally and teacher talk specifically rests on quality not quantity.  It is an interesting reflection on how educational reforms have inadvertently damaged teaching that we ever allowed judgements to be made using a stopwatch.

The effectiveness of what I say as a teacher rests on three factors: how well I know the subject; how well I know the learners and my ability to break the subject down in order to make it accessible to those learners. If I do not know my subject inside out and if I do not know the learners, I can talk for 10 minutes or three hours and I may achieve nothing. On the other hand, if I know the subject and know the learners, I can judge the instructuon , the questioning, the explanation and the modelling to maximise the time available. The time will vary depending on subject and learners which is why setting a limit was and is a nonsense. The judgement as to what to explain, ask and instruct is part of what makes me a professional.  

The criticism that a teacher has spoken for too long is often an inadequate shorthand for  what is in reality a lack of clarity in the teacher’s talk and/or preparation. When teaching a class of 30, the following undermine learning:”winging it”; waffle; a monotone voice; poorly phrased questions, instructions or explanations; spoonfeeding and lack of structure. All of those can involve a teacher speaking for too long a period of time. Those who observe teaching need to ensure they feedback with precision as to the exact nature of the issue. 

What we say in front of a child, a group, a class or a whole school needs to be carefully thought through based on a high level of subject knowledge. Instructions, questions and explanations need to be planned by the teacher anticipating  what a learner in that class/of that age will hear. Each instruction essential for understanding, or question necessary for development of thought, needs to be mentally  planned, edited and replanned. This is a mental process that can be learned and refined. If the instruction is not essential, it should not be said. If the question is not going to support learning, it should not be asked (or not asked in that form). Poorly framed instructions, explanations or models lead to confusion; poorly constructed questions often lead to silence and frustration. When I reflect on a lesson, I should not need an observer to feedback based on a stopwatch, the quality of children’s response is a far more useful indicator. There may have been a range of factors involved in the learners’ understanding (including time of day, incidents at playtime etc) but I know what I said and what I asked and on that basis I, or an observer, can reflect on the effectiveness of my teaching. 

General Election 2017- pulling up the ladder behind us- a few sweeping generalisations about politics

Tomorrow morning, The Conservative Party will have an increased majority and people will either be pleased or disappointed. I am confident of the outcome partly because of the polls but mainly because, despite vast societal change, voting patterns in my lifetime have not changed. A significant proportion of middle class people who, because of demographics, determine tne outcome of elections, vote for the party that poses least short-term economic risk to people like them. Education, health, Brexit and security are all important issues but nothing compared to perceptions of competence to manage the economy in my immediate interests. In this period of low global and national economic growth, our risk aversion has increased which is why, despite a poor campaign, the conservative vote held up.

Part of our economic insecurity includes not wanting to share what we have with others. This sense of competition over limited resource is what drives dislike of migration. It also feeds passive support for policies that cut provision for those more vulnerable than ourselves despite the altruism that is clearly part of people’s lives. It is less economically risky to buy a charity single than to seek a political solution that prevents social issues occuring. While individuals are appalled by homelessness, hospital waiting lists, school cuts, our collective response is to shrug because the solutions pose too great a risk to our ability to choose how we consume material goods, holidays etc. Brexit, which was portrayed as an economic risk in the referendum, was voted for by 52% of the country who saw their own financial security served better outside globalized markets of goods, money and people  over which they had no apparent control.

 We should pause before castigating or criticising people for protecting their own short-term position. Such behaviour can be seen as part of a shared human weakness that often drives humanity forward. Behaviour is not a simple choice between the ethical or unethical but instead on a spectrum between the two extremes of right and wrong. It is not just a middle-class phenomena. Some of the poorest vote to pull up the ladder that they fear can give migrants access to the scant resources available in their community.

The Labour Party comes out of the election having given a voice for younger people in cities. It has provided a populist alternative which has connected with a third of the population. At least, the election has been made more interesting by their policies. Unlike the last 5 elections, we have not been asked to choose between 3 versions of neo-liberalism. Although the current Labour Party is more a protest movement than an alternative government, they now offer a voice to those who do not share the dominant values of society. Corbyn is a politician of unusual integrity (his very low and scrupulously honest expenses claims over many years told us that) whose weakness is filling positions with friends rather than seeking a broader base for opposition. The party is stuck with him and needs to get used to it but he needs to reach out beyond his friends if he is to provide an effective opposition that goes beyond mass rallies and social media. 

The Conservative Party may have the majority that protects their legislative  programmes from House of Commons’ rebellions but they have as many problems as Labour. If Brexit leads to recession, May will not survive. She is a politician that people like the idea of rather than the reality.  As soon as she speaks on TV or in the Commons, her weaknesses are exposed. She is neither a good  debater in the Commons nor a charismatic provider of soundbites. Making the election about her (from the battlebus slogan to the repetition of ‘strong and stable’) means that if things go wrong, the Conservative Party are likely to remove her more quickly than previous leaders. Despite the increased majority, she is in many ways in a more precarious position from which to negotiate Brexit than she was before. 

The Liberal Democrats are in the difficult position of being ignored. The public and media are quite happy with the narrative of a political two horse race. In many ways, it’s Liberal Democrat problems in getting publicity that means Labour’s successful campaign has not affected the result. It does not matter how well Labour does in the big cities, if Lib Dems do not challenge Tory seats in the South and South West. They need to reconsider how they can operate an increasingly divided country. If Brexit is a disaster, there will be little political capital in being the party that says, “We told you so”.

Being selfish,  my thoughts are also on the impact of the election on schools. The anger over education, expressed during the election, may give the government pause for thought but the cuts will continue. Education is being transformed by the Treasury rather the DfE. The cuts to staff and resources leave primary schools focussed on literacy and numeracy skills with little in the budget for anything else. Large academy chains will continue to grow with high staff turnover, low wages and increased testing. The long term impact will be an increasingly excluded underclass feeding divisions in society. 

The greatest issue highlighted by the election is how much more divided we now are than before the financial crash in 2008. Income and wealth inequalities have increased as every section of society pulls up the ladder behind it. We are divided by age in a way that has never happened before. Brexit split the country in two. There is a far greater difference than before between the values of those who live in big cities compared to the rest of the coumtry. We may have voted to limit economic risk to people “like us” but this high level of division and insecurity are a threat to all our futures in a world where the population is growing, natural resources are being used up and, as a result, war,  conflict and terrorism are increasing. 

Waving not drowning: how the teaching of swimming can illustrate the importance of pedagogical breadth and balance in primary schools

This short piece has been prompted by, and is indebted to, a humorous tweet by @tombennett, blog posts by @suecowley @ChrisChivers2 and a conversation with @ezzymoon. 

The teaching of swimming can illustrate a belief in the importance of a broad and balanced pedagogical approach in all subjects. 

Most of my experience is with key stage 2 pupils who have never been swimming before (due to the closure of municipal pools since 1990)  Whereas teaching other subjects badly reduces life opportunities, getting the teaching of swimming wrong would mean either a child drowning in the lesson or being unable to survive falling in water at some point in the future. The stakes are quite high. 

For some children, the best approach is to lower themselves into the deep end in the first lesson and set off towards the shallow end near but not touching the side. Whilst I have found this approach to be effective, it is rarely used in primary schools because children do end up spending most of the precious half hour lesson stood on the side. Some people would argue that my continued belief in this method despite the limited time in the pool makes me a traditional teacher focused on direct instruction of technique. I’m used to being labelled by others so that’s ok.

The problem with the label is that during lessons I also give children time in the shallow end to learn through playing around. This is important for some children, but not all, in order to develop confidence. Arm bands and floats also support (literally) some learners. Judging when to remove the aids requires expert assessment of development. Children develop confidence at different rates for a wide range of complex and inter-related reasons. I seek to engage children from their own starting point. I scaffold the learning- with a long pole in the deep end which I hold in a physical zone of proximal development (about two inches beyond the child’s reach) This leads some people to label me progressive which is also ok if it suits them.  I have fished a child out of a pool on more than one occasion. If they were to drown, I would blame my teaching not the child’s failure to listen to instruction. 

When I teach swimming, I cannot afford to teach to an ideology. Every child needs both confidence and technique. The question is not whether my teaching should be influenced by the similarities between children or the differences but how I acknowledge and adapt to both the similarities and the differences. I am not developing Olympic swimmers (but if it happened i’d take the credit) but people who can choose to enjoy the benefits of swimming all their lives. Therefore, this is not about 10000 hours of deliberate practice but the contribution of swimming to the overall development of the child. If the children spend all their time with their feet on the floor, they will never learn to swim. If children’s experience is restricted to swimming lengths, some will never choose to get in the water. There is a pedagogical balance that works. The balance varies depending on the child. As a primary teacher, my expertise lies in finding that balance. 

For 10 years,  I have spent one evening a week as a diving instructor with teenagers and young adults. The importance of a broad pedagogical approach is just as important for this level of expertise as it is with year 3 non-swimmers. Alongside the teaching of technical diving expertise, our trainees play lots of games to develop both confidence and stamina. 

Every subject is unique and determined by specific knowledge, skills and understanding. For every subject there is a broad and balanced pedagogical approach that reflects the uniqueness of the subject and adapts to both the similarities and the differences between those learning.  Unlike in swimming, in other subjects, lives may not depend on finding the breadth and the balance, but the principle is always the same. 

In 1977 I hope I go to heaven

Very rarely does anything I say impress anyone. My philosophy that the answer to everything is ‘balance’ (which is just a rehash of ‘moderation in all things’) is met at best with indifference. The only statement I make that has drawn a response on anything like a regular basis is the following:

‘I saw The Clash play live’

From a few people, I have received a sense of envy to the point where I feel quite proud even though all I did was buy a ticket and turn up. For the record, they were brilliant (and I’m not just saying that to increase the envy of others). I have seen many bands play all sorts of music but nothing has matched that performance. 

Today is the 40th anniversary of the release of The Clash’s first album. The level of interest strikes me as incredible because the world is such a different place. 

The 1970s was a fairly horrible time. The energy and excitement of the 60s had long since disappeared. The industrial heartlands were in decline and the 50s housing estates no longer seemed the perfect answer to the slums they had replaced. Culturally, alongside a few gems (T-Rex, Bowie, first wave of ska, reggae, Marvin Gaye’s ‘What’s Going on?’) it was awful.

The Miners strike, the 3-day week, bombings, gangs. This was not a good place to grow up. 

And the country was bankrupt. 

The Clash seemed the perfect response: angry but with a deep rooted concern for people. Their music reflected and captured the experience of people in industrial cities in the 1970s. With the world changed beyond recognition over the last 40 years, it is surprising that they are still remembered 

Although not great musicians and with a singer who struggled to hold a tune, they produced excellent songs and had a fantastic appetite for developing themselves. They refused to mime on TOTP leaving the BBC having to get Pans People to dance to them. They released a triple album for the price of a single album leaving themselves in huge debt. They refused to release an album with the mantra “home taping is killing music” on the sleeve. They had integrity writ large. But it was all in the context of the end of the 70s so why the interest now? 

The answer for me is that the breadth of their music makes them very easy to listen to over and over again. Put the album Sandinista on a you have reggae, funk, folk, rock and first signs of Rap. They  were prophetic musically and lyrically. Joe Strummer wrote about global warming (London Calling) ten years before it was publically talked about. Across a number of songs, his commentary on politics can still apply  today: 

“All over, people changing their votes

Along with their overcoats

If Adolf Hitler were here today

They’d send a limousine….”

What The Clash saw was the world changing in front of them. They saw it because they went looking for the changes and in doing so changed themselves. They sang with anger and compassion about the situation people found themselves in. The speed of change keeps increasing and the poverty of existence remains. That’s why the Clash remain important today 40 years and a world away from 1977 

The blues of Gianfranco- a short football blog 

Leadership of any organisation should aim to get the best out of staff. In work, people develop incrementally in reponse to clear, achievable expectations and a range of outside factors (health etc) over which there is little control. There are no shortcuts in creating sustainable improvement in any organisation just plenty of pitfalls.

Last December Gianfranco Zola was brought in to manage Birmingham City because his fame might attract players and take Birmingham City to the riches of the premier league. The decision was a gamble and an attempt to shortcut the club’s development. To say that the gamble failed would be an understatement: relegation beckons.
Zola took over a team of limited players who had worked in a system that allowed them to achieve above themselves. It was not great to watch but we were 7th with a team that included free transfers from the League 1. He immediately scrapped his predecessors blueprint and asked players to play an attractive, passing game that they were not capable of doing. As a leader you cannot ask your staff to adopt a new, more skilled way of working overnight. You have to know your staff and develop a culture that can instil confidence in both individuals and their shared fate. Blues’ players appear to have a little confidence and the club is now gripped by the fear of relegation. Like many charismatic or celebrity leaders, Zola’s stay  will be short-lived. His legacy may haunt us for a few years to come.