littlemavis

Little_Mavis' rants and musings


Leave a comment

Conformity or Variety?

A very quick two penn’orth on the issue of criticising/praising schools.

For what it’s worth, and feel free to ignore me but, in my personal (& humble) opinion, it’s good to have schools with different ethos(es?). I doubt there is a single way that works for every child (assuming we could define what we mean by “working” for every child). And even if it did there will be teachers and parents who would find it morally uncomfortable to follow some practices whether they be strict discipline or too much freedom. Maybe we could just accept that different provision should exist for different requirements.

Some fortunate children will thrive in any circumstances because they are adaptable and have an enriching and knowledgeable home environment. These are the children that teachers describe as “a joy to teach”. Some will also thrive in any circumstances through sheer grit and force of will. On the whole, these are less well liked by teachers because they can make life uncomfortable but they are valuable because they can teach us something about ourselves and how we relate to those who do not fit our image of what a good student should be like.

Sadly there are others who need something different. Yes, the quiet children who might suffer because the classroom is too rowdy (by the way, if we are being really keen on developing “grit” shouldn’t we apply it to this group? – Not advocating this, just pointing out an odd inconsistency in some current ideas) but also the misfits who struggle to conform or to concentrate. They may need something different.

What I find worrying is the idea that if something works in a specific setting it should be applied everywhere and, if ever this then doesn’t succeed, it’s because people just aren’t doing it right. That may be the case, but it also may be that the idea isn’t universally transferable to elsewhere.

I’ve seen arguments/discussions recently about whether it’s OK to praise or criticise specific settings or people. I’ve seen concerns about obedience and conformity.

Personally, I’m not keen on obedience as a concept, I’d rather instil a knowledge of what is desirable or acceptable in varying circumstances and have children understand why certain behaviour is required and then do that because they want to. I’m also not keen on enforced conformity, which is odd, because I tend to conform. Maybe that’s why I dislike petty rules so much, because I can’t just do the sensible thing and ignore them when they get in the way of common sense. I need to fight them.

BUT

I don’t especially want to stop other people running their schools in a way I dislike. I just don’t want people trying to make all schools work the same way and I would be most unhappy if I had no choice but to send my child to one.

Just stop telling other people they have got it all wrong and you are right regardless.


Leave a comment

Grammar School

My next instalment of school life in olden days.

If you would like to see the earlier posts, they are Infants, Juniors and some background.


Before I start, I want to make it crystal clear that I do not support the reintroduction of grammar schools. This is simply a description of what it was like as a South Yorkshire working class girl attending such a school in the 1960s, It was a good experience. I probably didn’t take quite as much advantage of it as I should have. It may also give some insight as to why some people in power, who would have attended somewhere similar and who gained from it might be nostalgic about them and support them. I also suspect that the intake of this school was more working class than those in leafy suburbs. It was a mining area, solidly Labour then & pretty much so now, apart from UKIP inroads. “Posh” kids were the exception, not the rule so I don’t think I felt the alienation that some in similar positions felt. My brother went to the local secondary modern and did just fine. He got Grade 1 CSEs & a couple of O levels. He did practical subjects that the grammar didn’t offer and got an electrical apprenticeship straight from school.

I came out with 9 O levels and 5 A levels and was the first in my (extended) family to go to university. I can’t say I made the best of a good education, but many of my classmates did. For us, it was a success. I completely understand that it wasn’t the same for everyone, but you can’t ignore the fact that for people like me, it worked.

So. 1965. I passed my 11+, along with a good proportion of my classmates and was sent to the local grammar school. The school I went to was an old fashioned grammar school with a twist. I think I’m going to make this in two parts. First, describing the school itself and then my personal experience of it. I’m not sure how it compares to other schools today. I only attended the one and the school my children went to was a comprehensive that had been built in 1950s as a grammar school but was becoming rather dilapidated.

I haven’t worked in a High School except for short times on supply so have very little idea of what is standard, either for normal high schools or grammar schools.

Our very first visit was on the day we started after the summer holidays. No visits to get to know the place, just “Turn up at 8:30 on Monday”. We were all sent into the hall and were allocated into 6 classes, 30 per class. There were proper cloakrooms to hang your bags and leave your outdoor shoes and we had a classroom with proper desks with lift up lids that we kept our books in. The teachers came to us, except for things like science, art, domestic science & PE.

We did exams twice a year and our report books included our mark & our position in class for each subject.

The school building was very new. It had its first intake in 1964 when we were in year 6 so had, what was then considered to

mgs

Typical 60s built school. Since demolished and replaced.

be state-of-the-art facilities.

For PE we had a boys’ and a girls’ gym with a sports hall between, tennis/netball courts, huge playing fields with multiple pitches for hockey, rugby and football, a rounders pitch, a full size running track and long jump and high jump pits. We also had a swimming pool. Well, to be honest, it was more like an oversized water tank in a greenhouse.

We had dedicated labs for Physics, chemistry and biology, art rooms, domestic science, both cookery and sewing music and woodwork and metalwork rooms.

We also had a kind of tiny farm with rabbits and guinea pigs. I’m honestly not sure what that was for.

After the first year, we were streamed. The top third (no idea how this was done) were put into two classes which comprised the Latin stream and, were taught Latin alongside other subjects. I imagine we were considered those most likely to go to university. Within those two classes we were further set for science only. We did have to choose between (I think) art & domestic science for girls and art & woodwork for boys. There was no thought of girls doing woodwork or boys taking DS.

The teaching was pretty formal, they told us stuff, we wrote stuff down, we learned things and discipline was, well, not especially strict actually. Some teachers expected you to stand when they came into the room but not all. Some wore gowns, most didn’t. Boys were caned for some misdemeanours, girls weren’t.

Every year we had an “Arts Festival” which was an inter-house arts competition which included creating & performing a small play (multi-year) reciting poetry, playing instruments etc.

great hall

The College hall from a more recent photo found on FB

The school had an annual Gilbert & Sullivan production with both (sixth form) students and teachers performing roles and a school play, again sixth formers. The two I was involved in were The Beaux Stratagem and The Petrified Forest, so it covered a decent range.

Girls played hockey, rounders, netball, boys did rugby, football, cricket. Boys also did cross country. We girls lobbied to be allowed to also, but the head was against it, he didn’t want girls “running round the countryside with bare legs”. He was eventually persuaded that we could run a circuit of the school fields, which is what the junior (years 7 &*) boys did. We soon discovered it wasn’t all that much fun, especially in the mud. We had inter-house sports and played against other schools. Often first and second teams.

The head was rather eccentric. He built an aeroplane in the woodwork block as a school project – I believe it is still flying today and help “High table” on the stage in the college hall where about half a class would have lunch with him while we chatted politely. I remember him as always having food stains on his tie.

The sixth form was in a separate block, though it shared science labs and was not a standard school sixth form. It was, as far as I know, the first sixth form college.

I found this extract in a book which explains it quite well. There was no uniform in the sixth form and although we did not call teachers by their first name we did have a more informal relationship with them. We had a sixth form common room and free periods, at least, you did unless you had foolishly decided to take four full A levels.

mgs sixth form from Education 16-19 In Transition by Eric MacFarlane

From Education 16-19: In Transition Eric McFarlane

I’m sure there are things I have forgotten here but since I’m planning a further post on actual experience this is just meant to be a brief outline. I’m not sure it’s substantially different from many comprehensive schools today. I’ll write again about my personal experiences.

 

 


20 Comments

Infant School

Infant school was a very different place when I was small.

My first school was Park Road Infants. This seems to be the only building left standing of the schools I attended.

feb8001-2I’m trying to remember what it was like but it’s a long time ago now. I think I would have started school in 1958 and things were different then. You may also need to take my memories for what they are, just memories. I haven’t checked the accuracy of any of these. My parents are dead and I doubt there are any accessible records.

The school was infant only and had 2 classes per year (I think) and possibly a nursery class. My first teacher was Mrs Swan who had long beautiful auburn hair and I remember as being kind. I remember nothing of the lessons we had, though I still have a few of the books my parents kept. If I can track them down, I’ll include photographs.

I’m not going to try to make this chronological, more a stream of consciousness recollection. I’ll note things down as I remember them.

Shape

The school was essentially classrooms off a single corridor. The hall stuck out the other side and the headteacher’s room was in the middle.

This is from memorypark-road-plan-jpg

And this is the school now

park-road-school

Teachers I remember

Rec     Mrs Swan

Yr 1    Mrs Gelder, Mrs Batty

Yr 2    Mrs Seagrave

Head  Miss Fletcher

 

General memories

  • No uniform. I don’t know of any primary schools that had uniform then.
  • The school day was generally 9am to 4pm with 1½ hours for dinner. Lots of children went home for this.
  • We had to put our heads down on our arms on the desk after dinner for a while
  • We sat in rows. At desks. I can’t remember what we kept in the desks. I don’t remember playing. Except at playtime.
  • We were given halibut oil capsules to take with our milk. They tasted vile
  • We had a maypole & learned dances  like these. It had red, blue, yellow & green ribbons. Boys held blue or green, girls held red or yellow.
  • We had a May Queen, though I only remember this in the first year I was there. I have a photo somewhere I’ll dig it out.
  • There were cupboards at the back of the hall with things to play with. I think we only got them out for wet play which was in the hall (maybe). These included wooden stilts like these or others made from Golden Syrup tins with strings through, hula hoops etc.
  • I seemed to spend a lot of time in year 1 standing behind the blackboard as a punishment for something (I really can’t remember the details but I think it was to do with disagreements with another child)
  • The year 2 teacher took a slightly different approach & punished the other child too. I remember being very pleased about this – I suspect, though again cannot actually remember & I’m basing my conclusions on what happened when I was older – I was asked if I hit her & I would have said “yes”. She was asked the same & said “no”. My downfalls over the years have often been because of my ridiculous level of honesty.
  • We learned to read with Janet & John books – no idea if it was phonics. I just learned.janet & John
  • We did an infant nativity. I was Mary. I had to sing a solo. I remember the headdress being hot, itchy and uncomfortable. I kept taking it off then putting it back on again so I’d look like Mary. I cannot remember the song. At all.
  • And at the end of three years, they sent home a report.

infant-report

I feel it is important to note that I actually only got one question wrong in Maths (¼ mark) They docked me a whole point because I spelled my name wrong at the top of the paper – I was excited!!

That’s it by the way. That’s all my parents got to inform them of progress.

Is it better now? What was it like when you were in Infant School? Can you even remember?


Leave a comment

Who’s to Blame?

It’s quite interesting really. When I was at school, back in the dark ages, my performance at school was definitely considered to be entirely down to me. And I mean entirely. If i didn’t do as well as the teachers thought I should it was put down to my being lazy, or not listening, or being too chatty. Luckily I mostly did OK so I didn’t get a huge amount of grief until the sixth form. To be fair, at that point, I think they were mostly right. I assumed I’d be able to do A levels easily (as I had O levels) and found I couldn’t. Because we didn’t have fancy stuff like AS levels then I didn’t realise this until I did incredibly poorly in my mocks I’ll try to track down some of my reports and you can see the comments I got. There never seemed to be (to my knowledge) any hint that a teacher hadn’t delivered enough, or that I might be bored because the lessons were boring. They told us stuff, we wrote it down, we learned it, we did exams. No Internet, just notes, textbooks and past papers. My Physics teacher back then didn’t even chase us for homework. He told us, right at the beginning of the course. “I’ll set it, you do it, you hand it in, I mark it. If you don’t, you’re the ones who lose out, not me.” He did warn us, at regular intervals what would happen if we didn’t work “You’ll fail!” (Imagine that said in a Welsh valley’s accent & that’s what Mr Edwards sounded like – I was very fond of Mr Edwards)

Anyway, I went to uni, worked my way through a couple of careers (Information Scientist, Export Sales Admin, General Sales Admin, Programming, software support) and eventually fetched up in teaching, by which time the pendulum had swung and somehow I was responsible for my students’ results. I was a bit resentful of this. Surely the students bore *some* responsibility? Especially when I was teaching post-16. By then we had been mostly expected to just get on with it in preparation for university.

I left teaching a few years ago having most definitely been blamed for some students’ less than stellar results. That’s not a euphemism, they generally passed, the results just weren’t exceptional, just not as high as for some other staff (this was in teacher marked qualifications btw, not exams) but they were honest. I’d have been happy to let any examiner come & moderate the work.

Now, I don’t know when this change happened beyond it being somewhere between when I left school in the early 70s & started teaching in the late 90s but the pendulum does seem to be starting to swing back. The schools with an authoritarian no-excuses ethos, mostly academies? Are definitely trying to put the onus back on the children. They are ranking children again (and yes, I used to know my position in class after every exam or test & when I was in high school in every subject) and they are (from what I’ve read) shaming children for poor performance. Now this is never nice for the kids.If they struggle and are doing the best they can, no amount of shaming will help. Ever.If they are lazy because they don’t care it won’t make any difference and they may well make failure a badge of honour.If they are able, and conscientious or competitive, they may regard anything less than perfection as a failure. Sometimes this is fine. Sometimes it will drive them over the edge. (I’ve seen this happen with very able A level students)

It’s not just about developing resilience. A lot of this is down to your basic personality and some children who would otherwise be healthy, happy and successful will simply not thrive under this type of regime.

So. What’s it like now. I get the feeling that we are moving back towards blaming the kids and/or their parents. (Maybe the teachers who want this aren’t used to being blamed for the lack of success because they weren’t blamed when they were kids) But, I can’t say I’m happy about this. When I was young it was our responsibility but there wasn’t such emphasis then on academic success. It was considered perfectly reasonable to be “practical” or “good with your hands” rather than being academic. This is a big issue just now and one that I know both Sue Cowley and Disappointed Idealist here and here have blogged about.

Surely there is a happy medium somewhere in all this. Isn’t it time we accepted that education is a joint enterprise involving teachers, students, parents and the state. We all have a stake in it and we should all be doing our bit. We need to value all sorts of contributions and maybe trust each other a bit more.

To be honest. I’m not holding out much hope just now. The pendulum may continue on it’s swing. I just hope we don’t damage too many children in the process.


2 Comments

Competition or Co-operation?

Last night, I had a dream.

Doesn’t that make you shudder at the start of a blog? But don’t worry. This isn’t going to be a detailed description of my weird and wonderful dreams. I don’t really have those. This is just what triggered my current musings.

In this dream I was in a strange place; some kind of academic institution I think. (My dreams often include a return to places like this. I think it signals a not very hidden desire to learn something new.) Still, I digress. The noticeable feature of the dream was that I was welcomed and everybody tried to help me find my way and were supportive of what I was doing. This is a good dream. When I was teaching, and to be fair, in previous jobs though to a lesser extent, my dreams were similar in location but very different in tone. I found situations and people frustrating and obstructive, I had a goal, a destination and I was constantly being prevented from getting there in various ways; thwarted at every turn. I assume this is because it was what was constantly happening in real life. I knew what I wanted to do and what was needed, but was prevented from doing it by circumstance (and to be honest often by individuals) I fought against this, and succeeded to some extent for several years but was eventually beaten into submission when a combination of circumstances at home and at work meant I had no more energy to fight.

I’m generally an optimistic kind of person. I don’t give up easily and although I actually try to expect the worst because that way you’re less likely to be disappointed, in fact I don’t do that. I still have a secret core that believes things will turn out for the best. I can find a positive in bad things that have happened and regard setbacks as an opportunity to develop rather than as an end.

But…

Just now I’m struggling to do that. There have been blogs (such as this from Sue Cowley which caused a flurry of comments both pro & con) and comments (for example this conversation ) again recently about the macho language now being used, especially noticeable in education.  (I’ve also just come across this which is making a similar point.)

But it’s not just the language that’s becoming hard and ultimately competitive. It’s actions. Look at the way exams are now graded “to prevent grade inflation”. We’re heading back to norm referencing. Not only in A levels and GCSEs (as far as I can tell) but also in SATs results. I think the fact that “pass marks” are not being published until papers are in is a hint there. ( I suspect this is what Michael Gove was really talking about when he made the all schools can be above average remark) The actual quote from the education select committee

Q98 Chair: One is: if “good” requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible?

Michael Gove: By getting better all the time.

Q99 Chair: So it is possible, is it?

Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time.

What he wanted was for all schools to compete to be in the right hand side of the bell curve. And Ofsted had already been doing this for years by only classifying schools as *Good* if they were above average. This is all well and good if schools, teachers and pupils are not then castigated for not being good. And, ultimately, it means that you can only improve at someone else’s expense.

Today, this was again illustrated beautifully by our own dear SMW. First he criticised a local authority being the “worst performing region in the country“. Well, if you rank regions, schools, children, some will inevitably be the worst, whatever the overall standard. Next he claimed children are nor making enough progress after primary school (Odd since the government is currently claiming it’s primary schools who aren’t doing well enough and are hiking up the expected levels) and is reasoning that because of this we should re-introduce KS3 tests.

Last year, 68% of non-selective secondary school pupils who achieved a level 5 or above (which is significantly above average) in English and maths at the end of primary school failed to attain either an A* or A in these subjects at GCSE; 27% failed to achieve the minimum expected progress, a grade B.

Now, I don’t know the details of this, but I do know that to avoid grade inflation GCSE grades are pegged Jack Marwood knows much more and if he calls foul, I trust him.

The part that really worries me now it that this is not just in education, or even just in the workplace. It’s everywhere. The far right narrative which is currently in vogue seems to want to rank everything and everybody then specifically praise those who succeed at the expense of others.

Does everything need to be about competition rather than co-operation? Do we have to divide schools, the country, the world into them and us? Does your success have to come at someone else’s expense? Is co-operation a dirty word?


Leave a comment

To SAT or not to SAT?

Given its prominence in the news and on social media this week, (is that a fronted adverbial btw?) I’ve been thinking about SATs, exams in general, boycotts and children “striking”. I’ve gone round and round in circles and the best I can come up with is “It’s complicated”. For one thing our view will be inevitably coloured by our own experience and that of our children.  If we, or they, sailed through with no ill effects, it’s hard to imagine what it might be like for others who may have had an entirely different experience or had similar experiences but reacted in an entirely different way. It’s emotional and consequently really hard to look at things like this objectively

I’m breaking it down into several questions.

  1. Are tests in general good or bad? – I’d say neutral. Frequent tests (Americans call them quizzes which sounds less threatening don’t you think) help reinforce what you’ve learnt and show you what you haven’t. If they’re a regular part of learning and don’t carry huge significance I can’t see they’d do harm. You just need to make sure kids don’t use them to bully those who do exceptionally well or poorly.
  2. Are externally set and marked tests at key points in a child’s learning needed? – Possibly. It kind of depends on whether or not you trust teachers to assess accurately and fairly and that in turn depends on whether or not teachers are put under undue pressure which might lead them to manipulate the results. I’ve been under that kind of pressure and resisted. But it made me ill and led me to leaving the profession so this is obviously a big factor. I think we need to decide what these tests are for. GCSEs, and in some places still the 11+ are high stakes exams that affect the student directly. They determine progression routes and they have a stake in them. SATs are to measure the schools and teachers. I’m not convinced they do it well. Most? Many high schools re-test children when they arrive (or even on taster visits) as they don’t really trust the SATs results anyway.
  3. Do schools handle the SATs well? – Obviously many don’t. We hear stories of weeks or months of drilling in Literacy and Numeracy in year 6, or even before. We hear of the narrowing of the curriculum where Art, music, humanities are barely covered and of multiple practice papers being completed. Does it need to be like this? No. But I can see why schools do it when under pressure. Looking at some of the papers it seems as if they are designed to catch kids out rather than to assess what they know. I used to teach IT to 16yo which was assessed in part by a multiple choice test. The first time I completed one of them I barely reached a pass nark. You had to understand what they meant by the questions and what was required for thge answer so I had to teach test technique if I wanted my students to pass. It wasn’t enough to know your stuff, you had to know how to do the test too. I know there are some schools out there that teach a broad and balanced curriculum and still get good results. I understand the argument that if you deliver the curriculum fully and well that the children will do well in the assessments anyway. I also understand why many schools feel unable to do this, especially when there is a virtual sword of Damocles hanging over them with the thread being the results of their year six children.(And thinking about this, I’d not be especially upset if I thought that any heads and teachers who suffer because a year got poor results were all bad teachers/heads but I’m far from convinced that’s the case)
  4. Do the SATs test the right things? – This is where I really start to struggle. Somewhere in the loft I have a few of my primary school exercise books. I’ll look them out one day, but I’m fairly sure we didn’t cover some of the things now covered by the KS2 National Curriculum, especially the Spelling & Grammar element. Now, I went to school in the 60s, took the 11+ and went to Grammar School. I took Latin O level so I was at school in what I suspect Gove and I suppose Morgan and Gibb think of as the golden age of education. Tests on a regular basis, tables, class ranking, corporal punishment but definitely not grammar to anything like this extent. And as Michael Rosen is currently telling us, supported by people I would consider to be genuine experts such as David Crystal, much of what is being tested is not especially good grammar and may well be damaging rather than improving children’s writing.
  5.  Oh and finally. Are children unreasonably stressed by this? – Lots of discussion today (I’m looking at you @TomBennett71) about how children wouldn’t be stressed if parents and teachers weren’t stressing them. Not sure that’s really the case. Children pick up on tension whether we try to hide itr or not and some teachers are so stressed by the whole affair that they can’t help but let it seep out, though I grant you that some don’t seem to try very hard. I wasn’t stressed by my 11+ and my kids (now in their 20s) weren’t stressed by SATs. But we all did well and were expected to do well with no pressure. I’ve worked, as a TA with kids who got very stressed and some who just didn’t care. I suspect it’s down to basic character as much as anything.

 

So. What’s my overall conclusion? It’s complicated. Tests aren’t bad, maybe accountability tests aren’t bad but the content, how we are using the results and the subsequent narrowing of the curriculum is bad but understandable under the circumstances.

Solution? Who knows? I doubt I can be convinced that the current content of the SpaG or the Writing requirements at KS1 and especially KS2 are sensible or needed. I think the way heads and teachers livelihoods can depend on how well children do in these tests is unfair and dangerous. Rationalise the content, remove the threat to teachers/heads and it may settle down. But yes. Really look at the content. I think that is what has really prompted the current actions by parents.

And please ignore any SpaG errors, I’ve not proof read or revised.


Leave a comment

Nuance

I can’t remember what set me off on this train of thought but I was musing this morning on our tendency to veer from one extreme to the other. This happens in many walks of life but is somehow more obvious in Education.

The life cycle seems to happen like this.

  1. Research is done (may take any form & can be reputable & serious, or not)
  2. A commentator or journalist finds this and writes a piece, simplifying it for the audience.
  3. This snowballs as mainstream newspapers and magazines find it
  4. Some teachers find this and start to use it on a small scale
  5. Some heads/managers/governors happen across this. They like the look of it. They look for training on this
  6. ...Meanwhile…back at the ranch…someone has spotted a money-making opportunity & set up training courses
  7. Courses are booked, taken and teachers go back and cascade the knowledge
  8. Management look at this. It fits nicely into the “Results must improve. We need to do something. This is something. We’ll do this” scenario
  9. They implement the idea
  10. Some teachers love  it but…
  11. Not all teachers, so not all teachers do it
  12. It is made compulsory
  13. The teachers who don’t like it do it now but mostly just pay lip service (VAK notes on lesson plans?)
  14. Someone goes back to the original research and discovers it is non-repeatable/flawed/only applicable in certain circumstances.
  15. They blog/write articles/set up rival training courses.
  16. The idea is completely discredited and abandoned.

https://i1.wp.com/www.dhunplugged.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/stupid-idea.jpg

And remember, at any given time schools may be anywhere in this process. The school I worked at until recently only discovered Learning Styles a couple of years ago while others have been through the whole process and come out the other side.

Somewhere in all this there are small nuggets of workable practice that get lost. Take for example Brain Gym/breaks (are they related) for example. It probably is useful to stop periodically when we are working hard on mental tasks and do a bit of exercise. But it became fetishised and discredited and we’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Or learning styles. Still good to remind us that people do find it easier to learn in some ways than others and is a useful reminder to vary our approach but that is all. Pointless to label parts of a lesson with learning styles on a lesson plan. (I just wrote VAK in every section) Think of the hours that have been wasted either attempting to comply with rules about this and with discrediting it.

Much of the problem seems to be down to our tendency to oversimplify complicated research. Bow, I’m as keen on simplifying as the next person. I like things to be explained to me in words I can understand without a dictionary to hand. But we overdo this. We oversimplify to the point of uselessness. And we bounce around from one extreme to the other shouting “Group work”, “No Direct instruction” creating conflict and false dichotomies.

Teachers are busy, teachers are weary. We sometimes take the line of least resistance when faced with demands. I know there are leaders out there who don’t do this, but many do. External pressure from government and Ofsted will not help with this. It’s a good thing that teachers are setting up their own CPD and research hubs. Maybe this flip flopping with ideas will slow down. Some sneer at it, but education is complicated, it is nuanced and we need to examine ideas and implement them carefully with consideration.