Outstandingly ordinary

A few days ago I had one of those spine tingling lessons that just 'worked'. This kind of thing is the life blood of teaching - it's a perk of the job you can't properly relate to non-teachers. A lesson that clicks makes all the hard work we put in worth it. Frustratingly though it's really difficult to predict when these sparkling lessons will happen. Sometimes they are the result of massive and meticulous planning, but at other times they can be a complete surprise and happen despite patchy planning. In all honesty the one last week was a complete surprise - the planning I put into it was nothing special and really did not deserve the results it delivered for me or the class, particularly given the context/timing of delivery.

"Can we have a fun lesson sir?"
Picture it for a moment... a middle ability year 9 group, in the very last lesson on the last day of half term - they're are about to have a week off and want to wind down, frankly so do I! They came in with the predictable "It's our last lesson sir, can we have a 'fun' lesson", which was met with my equally predictable response of "Of course it'll be fun, we're doing maths!" Up my sleeve I had nothing more than their first ever lesson on trigonometry...

No gimmicks*, nothing flash, no student lead discovery, no card sorts, no videos, no animations, no movement around the classroom, just a basic lesson where I tell/show them something and they then practise it. You could even describe it as a chalk and talk lesson - I explained what trig is, what it does, and showed them some worked examples, and then gave them some time to have a go at it themselves while I moved around the room offering support and checking progress. At the end we self assessed by checking answers and the students did a RAG123 rating and comment. (*Alright I did use a chalk pen to write SOHCAHTOA on all of their desks before the start, but they've seen me do similar before so I don't count it as a gimmick!)

By the end of the lesson the whole class had made massive progress; they could ALL use trigonometry to find a side length in a right angled triangle by selecting the correct trig ratio and correct calculation to do. This is something which NONE of them could do at the start (I had asked at the start - nobody had even heard of trig before other than perhaps something mentioned as 'really hard' by a parent or older sibling).

For the record I fully acknowledge this is teaching a process and not a deeper understanding of trig at this stage, however to expand on this requires a bit more discussion which would take me away from the central point of this post. I promise I'll return to that theme with a future post...

Big grins
They all left at the end with big grins having experienced success with this skill, many thanking me for the lesson, and I am optimistic that they will be able to recall and build on it after half term (though we'll have to wait and see). What's more, despite the apparently dry content I had not a single comment/complaint about not doing something 'fun' (usually student code for playing some kind of brainless game or watching a film), and they were all engaged and working hard throughout the lesson. 

Not that I'm hung up on levels but to give some perspective for those non-maths folks out there, this class have target levels in the range of high level 5 to low level 7. Trigonometry is rated as level 8, and as such this is a topic that should stretch even the best in the class. By most predictions it shouldn't have worked - surely they weren't in the mood for this at the end of a long half term? Surely they needed something more 'engaging?'

Only ordinary

I'll re-emphasise, this was their very last lesson before a week off, at the end of a 6 week half term. Frankly if a student teacher had suggested doing this lesson at that timing of the week/term I may well have questioned their judgement, but it worked! Basically against all the odds given timing in the day, week, term, and pre-conceptions about 'good' activities a completely ordinary, very traditional lesson had delivered outstanding outcomes. 

I'm not writing this to proclaim myself as some kind of super-teacher, I think I'm fairly ordinary. This lesson on paper had no right to be as successful as it was given all of the factors going against it. I certainly wouldn't suggest it could fall into a category of "outstanding" as planned, I guess it could even be viewed as "requires improvement" as planned.

What made it work?

It actually took me a while to realise the significance of this lesson in terms of my relationship with that group. When I was planning the lesson I'd not even questioned that they might not be up for it, but afterwards it struck me that it was by no means a certainty. I had to think it through a bit, and in the end I came to the conclusion that this lesson was just one in a long string of basically good lessons, which is something they are now completely used to....

All about habits

I'm suggesting that what made the real difference with this group in this lesson, and what gave me the confidence to plan it in this way given the context, is a track record of ingrained habits and expectations (both from me and the students).

I've been teaching this group since July, and they know that I have high expectations for them. Since November I have been using RAG123 marking with this class. As a result they know that I will review their work and respond to exactly what they have done in each lesson. This means their effort levels are consistently good - they don't like to get reds! I also know them very well now as a result of RAG123 dialogue, and know the kind of support each student is likely to need during a lesson like this.

I have always made it clear to them as a class that I won't let their target levels limit what I teach them, or put a cap on what they can achieve; as a set 2 they are taught the exact same content as our top sets. All of the topics we have covered this half term have been level 7 or 8, and they have experienced success with them. In our last assessment test the entire class (27 students) scored at least one sub-level ahead of their target, all of them were level 7 and above, and 6 were in level 8. The chart below shows their progress in tests since September:

Over time this class have developed a trust with me that difficult topics will be broken down, I'll review what they've done in lessons via RAG123, revisit it, re-teach it and practice it with them when needed. In a lesson the class know they need to listen during an explanation, and can ask questions when they need to. They know I will target questions during these explanations to check understanding. They also know that they will have a level of control in the difficulty of the practise I ask them to do, via star rated questions that allow them to push harder or go easier depending on their confidence.

None of this is outstanding on paper - it's just 'good' teaching, nothing fancy.

Outstandingly ordinary
I don't think I've ever once tried to plan an 'outstanding' lesson for this group, but I always aim for my practice with them to be consistently good. I think that's what they're responding to, and that's why they're making outstanding progress.

I've blogged previously on the idea of basically good teaching being a foundation for outstanding outcomes - see this post. Also see this post by David Didau (@LearningSpy) which I think explores a very similar area.

The result is that this group are basically in the habit of learning effectively, and they trust me to deliver a lesson that will help them to progress. They also know that they can get help during a lesson, from me, from their peers or from other resources in the room. They can also indicate a need for help in the next by making comments in their books that I'll respond to due to my regular RAG123 marking.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that because this group are in the habit of receiving a diet of basically good lessons, with good feedback, and good dialogue, they are in a place where even a lesson that should be really difficult to deliver can be made highly effective.

This lesson wasn't the first spine tingling occasion with this group, and I don't expect it to be the last as they are working in such a fantastic way at the moment. However I don't think the next one will come from the expense of masses of time planning, or from my delivering whizz bang performances - it will be due to continuing on the diet of basically good.

I'm more and more certain that consistently good for a long enough time is all that is needed for incredible progress.

Comments & thoughts are always welcome.

The first rule of RAG123 club

Sharing best practice requires interaction, but teaching can be a fairly solitary profession - planning lessons alone, marking/feedback done alone, lesson delivery often done where you're the only adult in the room, reflection on lessons done alone.... But why?

I teach in several different rooms across a week (due to a combination of class sizes and the desire to inconvenience myself first before the rest of my team), and as a result my class's books are spread across different rooms. Previously I collected them and took them to the maths office to mark (using RAG123 - see this post), and then returned them to the correct room afterwards. The penny dropped that this was a bit silly so I have started to just sit in whichever room the books are in to mark them, which often means I'm marking in another teacher's room, and something remarkable happens.... we talk and share thoughts about the classes while getting on with our work!..... and this gave me an idea!

Wouldn't it be fascinating to identify a time each week where a number of us got together and just marked our books in the same room? I'm going to propose it next week - just to give it a try. (of course I realise that this does require people to move their books to the designated room, but this is about achieving something more than simply marking the books)

Importantly I'm not going to compel anyone to join in (acknowledge that some might find it excruciating to be in the same room as others for this kind of thing), but I'll identify a room and a time and invite others to "bring your books to RAG123 club"....

The rules of RAG123 club:

1. Tell everyone about RAG123 club!
2. You don't have to come to RAG123 club, but it would be great if you did
3. You don't have to talk/share at RAG123 club, but it would be great if you did
4. You can share anything at RAG123 club - interesting work done by a student, interesting comments, frustrating responses to a task, particular successes, particular failures
5. Feel free to magpie any ideas you pick up via RAG123 club, and let the other person know that you've done it/how it goes

Of course some of you might already do something like this - if so I'd be keen on your thoughts.

Strategy vs tactics

I remember some time ago when I was quite new to the role of head of department I was asked in a meeting about my response to some disappointing mock results that we'd just received. I responded at the time that I didn't want to make a knee jerk reaction to the new results, but wanted any response to be part of a strategic plan. At the time I suspect that the person involved thought that this apparent lack of immediate action was a sign of indecision or weakness on my part.  They pushed me to answer there and then... 'but what are we going to do about it?' I refused to be pushed into a quick response, I wanted it to be considered and therefore definitely the right thing to do, rather than rush a decision that could harm a different aspect of our practice.

The vital difference between tactics and strategy.

People confuse tactics with strategy all the time, but they're different, just like "leadership" and "management" are different.

On my MBA course we had a fascinating lecturer on corporate strategy, unfortunately I've forgotten his name. He was a self made millionaire who had at one point lost it all and re-built his business from the start. His view was that strategy is about knowing yourself, your organisation, your competition, and the environment that you're working in. Once you know these things then strategy is about where you want to get to given all of that contextual information. Not knowing aspects of these things would lead to a flawed or vulnerable strategy, subject to disruption by unexpected inputs. Vitally a strategy should be set over a fairly long term, and be based on a detailed knowledge of the current situation.

By contrast tactics are relatively short term measures or actions. If you link enough of the correct actions (employ the right tactics) then you'll deliver on your long term strategy. However tactics can also be employed to resolve or mitigate a short term problem. The presence of tactics themselves does not imply strategic actions. Mitigation of a short term problem may, or may not serve to support a long term strategy, and in fact it may undermine it completely.

Strategy is about more than a vision statement

Often strategies are supported by a long term vision, but you've got to have more than that. If the vision (or mission) statement provides the reason for being, the strategy provides the route towards this.

I've written a bit about sharing a vision/aim, and then breaking it down before in this post.

The importance of time
Tactical responses sometimes have to be quick (e.g. someone is unexpectedly absent, allocating cover and setting appropriate work is a quick tactical response to this need), but they don't always have to be. In fact there is usually more time available than people think there is.

For example if a school goes into a category or is given a poor inspection rating, there is a timeline put in place to demonstrate improvements. In this situation there is often pressure to fix everything immediately, or to demonstrate action by having a clear policy change to cover all points. However, without taking time to really consider the causes of the issues and the environment that they are in this can only be a tactical response. It might work, but as it's not taken account of all the other factors then it might not work, or might not last.

What's most important is that the tactics used are effective and sustainable. Therefore it is worth taking the time available to ensure they are the right ones, that support the long term strategy.

A hypothetical example
Lets say that the quality of marking was criticised during an inspection. The next full inspection will be in 18 months, but the inspection body will return to monitor progress at regular intervals.

Tactical response
An instant tactical response could be to require all work to be marked weekly, using a particular format/terminology. This format/terminology could be drawn from the current best performing department in the school and deployed across all the others. This policy could be checked by regular work scrutiny/book trawls at SLT level, with individual departments and teachers challenged if they don't keep up.

The chances are this would show a step change in marking for the first monitoring visit, but it requires a large amount of energy both at individual teacher and SLT level to ensure it is sustained all the way to the full inspection. With this high level of scrutiny, and inflexible format the teachers involved are likely to feel a high level of stress, which means their morale is likely to suffer, and as a result there may be an increase in staff turnover.

Strategic response
A more strategic response would be to put together a plan. The first step in the plan must be to get a clear picture of where current practice is, and a central agreement of what the ideal practice might look like. It's important to understand what aspects of practice are below standard, and to establish reasons for it. The next step is to identify what options there are to improve practice within each department, perhaps using recent research or best practice from other areas as guidelines. This stage has more inputs from more professionals than the tactical response, which gives more chances of better ideas. Then the changes need to be made, and there needs to be measurement of how effective the changes have been (which could still be SLT level, or it could be done at a departmental level), with further reviews and adjustments as needed. Of course failure to show progress towards improvements or adhere to the plan should still be challenged at a staff or departmental level. However critically this route is not blanket imposed, and it's considered the root causes of the problems in the first place.

The inspection body would initially see little measurable progress on their first monitoring visit, but should see evidence of the plan and progress through it. As time progresses the results should become more tangible, with improvements being demonstrated in future visits as the plan progresses. Since there is much greater opportunity for staff at all levels to influence this kind of approach, they are more likely to buy into it, and that is more likely to make it sustainable.

Overall differences
One is a tactical change - it "fixes" the immediate problem, but doesn't address the cause (in fact isn't remotely interested in the cause - it just applies a one size fits all "solution"). Tactical changes like this usually require extra energy to deliver, because they are additional to normal working practices, not developments of them.

The other one is a strategic change - it looks to move from the current state where there is a problem, to a future state where there isn't one. It takes into account the environment that surrounds the causes of the problem, and the possible impact of other actions on the way. Long term it is more likely that this action can be fully embedded in working practices because it develops from them and isn't added on top.

Leaders need to be brave enough to make time for strategic responses
Basically what I'm trying to say is that while tactical responses may be absolutely necessary in certain circumstances, leaders at all levels should seek to find time for strategic responses wherever possible. Sometimes this might require slower initial progress, and less of a quick fix. It may appear indecisive to those who want it resolved instantly, but the improved robustness and sustainability of the strategic response in the long term is worth this apparent slow start. Often this requires a bit of bravery to say "lets allocate some time to make a plan to improve" rather than "we need to improve so we'll do this".

As ever I'm keen to know your thoughts on this - realise there is relatively little tangible in here, hopefully it's not too preachy!