Teach Secondary - Issue 14.6

WHOSE PRACTICE is it, anyway? When assessing teacher performance, we’d be better off evaluating the practice that suits them, rather than comparing them to a proscribed standard that could be holding them back, advises Aaron Swan W e all have to be observed. It’s part of the quality assurance process that helps us evolve new and ever- improving practice. Observation roots out weak or substandard performance, but it should also identify and celebrate best practice. Observation is a quality assurance tool, whether applied directly through observation of lessons, or indirectly, via the assigning of grades, marking or student voice. Most teachers aren’t against observation in principle, but most teachers will also know of cases where observation has been used in ways that could be classed as unprofessional – partly because observation often comes accompanied by a prescribed set of ‘standards’ that define what ‘best practice’ looks like. But what if observation was the reverse?What if it was purely descriptive ? Meeting the standard Expectations placed upon teaching and learning can be as benign as directing the colour of pen we mark in. Some directives – like three-part lessons, the expectation of whole class feedback methods, incorporation of standardised lesson resources, etc. – can end up distancing teachers from the planning stage, replacing planning with doctrine. In highly controlled environments, teachers can have very little to do with the actual planning of lessons. Observations in these kinds of environments come down to checking that prescribed standards are being met in lessons. Some standards will always be mandated, of course. Are teachers undertaking the right module for the discipline? Are teachers following safeguarding procedures? Are we teaching as per the specifications, or in accordance with the National Curriculum? Yet the experience that teachers give to students is something that many teachers will want to own, as it’s closely aligned with our autonomy. We’re not merely here to enact the practice designed by someone else, but to be an individual in a classroom, possibly with our own idiosyncratic style. What’s needed instead are some variables, or language through which to describe a teacher’s practice. Individual teachers tend to deploy a few specific teaching styles that can be described through existing pedagogical language. A basic summary of the main ones might resemble those found in the panel opposite (see ‘Types of teacher practice’). Description, not prescription Under this model, an outside observer would come to the lesson with an agreed map detailing the main teaching styles exhibited by teachers and then attempt to describe the practitioner, rather than mark whether the teacher is satisfactorily performing in a particular directed style. A (self-assessed) radar for my own practice might reveal that I’mhighly facilitative- and humanist-orientated as a teacher, frequently creating resources students can navigate at their own pace in my absence, whilst talking to students about wellbeing. My lessons don’t seem compatible with Behaviourism, as success in my lessons isn’t about immediate reward, but rather the satisfaction to be had from exercising autonomy in pursuit of a singular purpose. My resources are less project-based (thus scoring low on Constructivism), and since I’m arguably not supplying mnemonics or short cycles of ‘learn > test’, neither would I performwell as a Cognitivist. What I am doing, however, seems to be working well for me and my students – for the most part. With a system such as this, we might use descriptivism to pair complimentary teaching styles, so that one can support the other. We could pair one teacher struggling to manage a class with another described as having a different pedagogical profile. Mix andmatch Matching two teachers with distinctly different styles may provide solutions for some teachers experiencing issues with behaviour and progress. Someone very strong on Behaviourism and Cognitivismmight greatly benefit frommeeting with a Humanist-Facilitator. This would be a comparative system, in which teachers are encouraged to think about the kind of practice they can utilise successfully. A system such as this would certainly have helped me during the early years of my career, when I was modelling my teaching on the highly authoritarian styles of muchmore experienced staff, which one could describe as being strongly Behaviourist and Cognitivist. It would have been hugely beneficial for my development if my radar were plotted by someone able to advocate for my strengths, and help me recognise how my moments of Facilitation or Humanismwere those moments with the most promise – what I know now to be my teaching character – after many struggling years as a new teacher. An observation framed in such a way may have subsequently led to me being paired with superior professional role models than those I had access to. Doing this, however, would require that schools both acknowledge and value difference in their staff’s professionalism. “We’renotmerelyhere to enact the practicedesignedby someone else,but tobean individual inaclassroom” 32 teachwire.net/secondary