A blog about a hashtag


A fairly prolific tweeter, @PaulGarvey4, uses the following hashtag




Despite several others telling him that there are issues with this, he continues to use it. That is clearly his right. It is clear that 140 characters is not enough to properly explain to Paul why this hashtag is, well, pointless and also potentially harmful.


First, “way” is not defined. Does he mean an activity carried out in a classroom? Like a card sort? Probably not. Does he mean a system such as explicit instruction? Closer, I think. Does he mean the set of activities that a teacher we call progressive might use? Sort of.


One issue is the lack of definition. Paul uses the hashtag to say that nothing works everywhere and, I guess, any method can work somewhere. The main query is whether or not the hashtag says anything of importance. Does it help us move on? Does it help us improve learning for any group of children? I think it does not.


I actually think it is damaging because it allows a teacher who is less confident using a particular technique to claim that there is no best way overall so they do not have to seek a better ‘way’. The issue I have with that is that we should not be simply seeking to justify what we currently do, but we should be looking for improved ‘ways’. The ‘way’ we choose should not be constrained by our current, personal ability to work with children. Teachers are professionals and should seek self improvement. We need to find the best possible ‘way’ rather than be satisfied with the status quo.


Also, we should be using evidence outside our own experience as well as considering the constraints imposed by the circumstances in which we work. For example, I am perfectly willing to accept that if one teacher operates in ‘ways’ that are very different from another teacher of the same subject, then that is less likely to be well supported and may not ‘work’ particularly well.


But my main problem with #NoBestWayOverAll is what does it say? What it says MUST be true and especially in education where the variables are so numerous. It is like saying “air is air and water is water”. That statement is most certainly true, but what can it possibly add to our knowledge base. So the hashtag has no validity, has no value other than it is


too true to be good.

Please. Paul, invent a hashtag that can be defined and has a definition having some value in moving us on. Did you know that ‘water is wet’?

Changing Behaviour

This brief blog was triggered by a Tweet by @MrBlachford. He said that a school’s behaviour policy mattered. That is true and you will know that my belief is that if a child misbehaves in more than one lesson the responsibility for action lies with the leadership of the school and not with the teacher, primarily.

The tweet triggered a simple thought. What is the point of a behaviour policy? Given whatever we do in schools the focus is learning how about we change to idea of a behaviour policy, often a policy which deals with misbehaviour, to a policy entitled

‘attitude to learning’?

I am thinking that this might change the focus to be closer to that which we want. Learning.

We would do many of the things that a good behaviour policy would contain but what else might it make us focus on?

Redrawing Bloom’s

I have to admit that I like Bloom’s taxonomy. He wrote a few but the education one that is a pyramid. Recently on Twitter the discussion has arisen again with the original intention of the idea, not an experimental thing by any means but an idea – a framework as Bloom called it, with the original idea of knowledge being the critical fundamental to the ‘higher order’ skills. The pyramid nature of Bloom’s is probably what causes the issue. Bit like a ladder or a hill. The temptation is to think the top of the tree is the place to be. Somehow it has more value that the base. You can see a long way from the top of the tree.Blooms Delivery ServiceDoug Lemov suggests this redrawing. The foundation, knowledge, is the fuel that leads us to the top. It does increase the emphasis on knowledge, the knowledge needed to be able to evaluate and to be creative. But it still has the implication that the important thing is the top.

@daviddidau bloogged about Bloom’s and constructed his own take on the diagram.

It has lots of stuff in there and needs time to digest. is it saying what Bloom’s encapsulates with his big fat foundation of knowledge? Interesting representation but I quite like to stick with a more formal and better tested version,. Something closer to Bloom’s original.

@dylanwiliam gave us this.

Dylan Wiliam Blooms

My problem is that I don’t see how comprehension, understanding of the knowledge, can’t also be fundamental. What asked Dylan said he did not want comprehension to be implied as leading to the others. It might depend on how you define knowledge. Is knowledge a rote thing? if it is then we do need comprehension.

I have played around with Dylan’s diagram. I have tried this:

Blooms Version 1

And then this:

Blooms Version 1 (3)

Not sure any of them work in all circumstances. But do any stop the silly rush to the top of the pile?

Six Thinking Hats

Promoted by @gragAshman’s piece entitles The Ministry of Silly Hats   that he wrote sometime in 2013 I decided to respond. I like Greg’s work and blogs which are well evidenced and often fit with my own less evidenced but feel-right views. I had mentioned on Twitter that I thought Six Hats was ok and while I know a number of other folk on Twitter disagree I have never seen any evidence to oppose. I was told that if I expected another to use the six hats system then I needed to provide the evidence. I agree. I am not directly promoting the use but I’d be happy, in an odd sort of way, for someone to show it is wrong.

I have not found any contrary evidence. My positive view comes from my own use of the process, developed by Edward de Bono. His proposition is that in the West we tend to knowcj=k ideas down; find things that are wrong with something rather than explore and seek solutions. We tend to have a reaction to an issue which is less concerned with the evidence or benefits than with whether or not an idea fits with our own current views. That seems to me to be true.

I have used Thinking Hats for quite a while and though not all my thinking by any means uses the discipline, probably I am too lazy and want a quick answer, when I do use it I feel I have better explored the issue. I probably come up with a more mellow response than I do when I just react.

A couple of points that I want to pick up from Greg’s piece.

I have never actually put on a coloured hat to identify the ‘type’ or mode of thinking. I do think that is silly. It s what might happen in The Office! I am not sure if de Bono himself actually wanted the hats to be real things.

Greg says that thinking depends on knowledge. Bit of a truism there. Who would deny that? Well ……… no, different post! Keep the focus. he implies because there is only one white hat that the status and value of knowledge is equivalent to any other hat. Not true. the white hat, meaning what knowledge do we have that might be relevant to the issue can be kept on for longer and put on more than once.

Anyway, I don’t mind being in a minority. I am not trying to get you to use Six Hats. I can’t find any research that either supports or denies that the system works. I have found it helps. perhaps that is just me. And generally, I like the work of Edward de Bono.

BUT he did write a book called Six Action Shoes. He says in the foreword to the book that he wrote in on an overnight flight from England to New Zeland. The book is unmitigated crap. It reads like a book written by someone hung over on a 24 hour plane journey!

Thanks Greg. Red, Yellow, Green, White, and Purple.

Red, Yellow, Green, White, and Purple. Might be a song there. 8-))

Kinesthetic Learners – damage caused by learning styles.

Some time ago on Twitter someone asked about the actual cost of teachers using the meshing of learning styles hypothesis as a way of structuring learning. Was the cost that great?

The simple answer is reached by thinking about the training costs. Consultants, like me, don’t come cheap. 8-))

The second cost is the opportunity cost. You could have been learning something more worthwhile in the time spent learning about and then planning for different learning styles. Children will have wasted time taking a ‘test’ to see which style they were.

The above all come quite quickly to mind.

Another ‘cost’ is the deception teachers and others were under through having been taught and then having used an incorrect, better to say unevidenced, theory. Bit like believing that trolls actually live under bridges. Silly.

But the effect I have not yet seen anyone account for concerns those kids who were identified as kinesthetic. What happened is that they were given kinesthetic activities to do. Card sorts were popular. Making things from cardboard. Placing answers on cards and posters around the room. they did not learn a great deal from these activities but it mostly kept them quiet.

The damage was that these activities diverted our attention away from what these kinesthetic learners actually needed. They fell further and further behind and this was justified as they were kinesthetic learners who were not really suited to academic learning. they sometimes did well at sport, or pottery, or making things in design technology. They got put on the workshop mechanics courses at the local FE establishment. They did bricklaying.

What they mostly needed was reteaching in how to read and to increase their general knowledge. They had low literacy skills not because they were kinesthetic learners but because they had poor reading skills. As Pamela Snow puts it they were victims of ‘edugenic academic failure’. This is academic failure caused by education!

That is a real cost of matching teaching to learning styles.

Seek and Ye Shall Find

What do we want to know about a child after they have been taught?

As a result of a post by Harry Fletcher Wood, I think that the above question is being answered wrongly. Harry wrote about formative assessment and touched on an idea that I have been mulling for a while. Harry’s blog was in response to David Didau’s repeated and correct assertion that we cannot judge learning over the course of a lesson. This assertion is annoying as it is the very thing we want to know about. Or is it? Do we really want to know what a child has learned?

Imagine some sort of perfect teaching where each child learned precisely what the teacher intended. Would we need to assess what was learned in that ideal situation? I hope you see that the answer is no. We just pile on with the next lesson and learning continues like a steam train chugging along the line.

No, if we knew that what had been taught was what had been learned then we would not need to asses.

So that made me ponder why we even tried to assess what they had learned. How about we assess what they had not learned? rats! That then falls into the DD trap. Can’t do that. All we get in a lesson is performance can do or performance can’t do.

But Harry to the rescue. What he suggests is really what we want to know is if any child is leaving the lesson with wrong information. Do they have any misconceptions?

That is then what we assess. We seek wrong stuff. Teachers of any experience know the typical misconceptions children have and that is what we are seeking. We seek so that we can correct, as soon as possible. It can form the basis of our planning for the next lesson.

It can also tell us that we need to alter how we teach the same piece of work the next time, with a new class. In a few weeks time, we can have our first attempt at assessing what has been retained. What has been learned.

Times Tables

The government has decreed that children will be tested on their knowledge of times tables at the end of primary school. This is to be a high stakes because the data will be published.

Twitter has, as always, been interesting with a now common flurry of complaints. Some of these claim that testing is an evil and we should not be subjecting children to such processes. It is not clear where these are differentiating between low and high stakes testing or are against any form of testing.

I find it hard to agree with those who object to tests. Perhaps they have not read the research that identifies low stakes tests as being powerful agents to support learning. there is loads.

if it is the high stakes part that they object to then I have some sympathy. It feels to me that primary teachers cannot be trusted to teach children times tables so need to be checked on with some form of external verification. There could also be an element of shaming.

Now teaching times tables should not be any kind of issue. But the third twitter group thinks it is. They claim that to rote learn, learn without reference to meaning, times tables is against the processes of mathematics. Some even go on to claim that children do not need to know times tables as computation can be carried out on calculators. Ken Robinson would love them!

Times tables known so that there is fluency and automaticity is critical for later mathematical development. I find it hard to see how anyone teaching maths does not recognise this. Actually, there is Jo Boaler. She is a professor of mathematics whose name crops up in this kind of debate. She claims not to know her times tables and not knowing has not been a hindrance to her. Tell that to the large number of children who struggle with maths, or give up on maths, who could have been very comfortable with mathematical thinking if only their primary teacher had insisted they learn their times tables.

Learn your tables, by rote if needed, and then add the features that make the tables turn into mathematics. It is not hard. Just needs a little determination and drive from pupils and from their teacher. There is absolutely no reason not to get children to learn times tables and there are reasons to avoid a route to learning which requires understanding to be the main way of learning. Clearly children need to do more than just rote learn times tables. I know of no one who suggests that rote learning is all that is done.

There is no way that rote learning first causes children to struggle with then moving to understanding. In fact, it is much easier to make the understanding move because children will already have the times tables securely in long term memory. Once information is in LTM it becomes possible to use as a chunk when it is moved into working memory.

One of the reasons I think that some teacher think that understanding is needed is that adults tend to need the motivation of knowing why to learn effectively. They often find it hard to hold back their desire for understanding and having a rationale. But children do not have this need to the same extent. Chidren are far more willing to learn because they teacher has deemed it important. We ought not to judge what children need by comparing it with what we, as an adult, need.