The Creation Myth of the College of Teaching

November 6, 2015

A while back on Twitter, there was some discussion of the plans for a new professional body, the College Of Teaching. Having understood the idea was largely the brain child of the House of Commons’ education committee, who recommended it in their report on “Great teachers: attracting, training and retaining the best” in May 2012, I was surprised by this exchange:

At the excellent Politics in Education Summit which I attended last Monday,  (I don’t think anything from that has been put online, so please be aware that what follows is mainly from my notes/recollections of myself and others who were there), Angela MacFarlane of the College Of Teachers, one of the groups setting up the College Of Teaching used a slide with a timeline suggesting that the current process started at a meeting of teachers in February 2012, and claimed:

There has been a lot happening over a long period of time and the most recent debate around the need for such an organisation dates back to February 2012 and it was not initiated by government, actually, the debate was ongoing before government got involved. The recommendation from the Education Select Committee was very helpful but, of course, it actually derived from the evidence they were hearing from people who were coming and giving their testimony…

The Claim Your College site gives a chronology which claims “The idea of a new College of Teaching was first broached at a Headteacher Residential held by the Prince’s Teaching Institute (PTI) in 2012” (this seems to be the February 2012 event) before acknowledging the role of the Education Committee of the House of Commons.

The discrepancy with the mention of 2011 in the earlier tweet seems to have been an error, and when I investigated it, it was indicated, again, that the idea for the College Of Teaching was suggested at that same event in February 2012:

So it would appear to be the case that the idea came up among teachers in February 2012, and was then fed into the House Of Commons Education Committee’s consultation on attracting, training and retaining teachers, leading to the committee endorsing it. And that this is the version of events shared by some of the people involved in the formation of the College.

Unfortunately, there’s a little problem with this. Even if the February 2012 conference is where the name “Royal College Of Teaching” was suggested, the idea for a new professional body was being suggested by a politician in the weeks beforehand. If you look at the minutes of the education committee’s evidence gathering sessions in January 2012, you will find one session where Conservative MP, Neil Carmichael directed the following to educationalists Alison Kitson and Chris Robertson:

Neil Carmichael: That is a really interesting point that you have just raised about the parallel between teachers and doctors, and indeed lawyers. The one thing that teachers do not have, which the others do have, is a professional body to represent them and effectively corral the very things you are talking about. Have either of you thought about the fact that the teaching profession might benefit from having an effective professional body looking at the issue of training and professionalism and career development on their behalf for them, rather than allowing teachers effectively to be subjected to a huge variety of options and possibilities, as currently happens?

Neil Carmichael: You are making the assumption that this would be something created by Government for teachers. It does not necessarily need to be, and perhaps should not be, created by Government. It should arise from teachers wanting to have a professional body to look after their profession, in their interests, and obviously, as Graham quite rightly pointed out, the interests of pupils too. Fundamentally, this is a question of how teachers themselves want to see things happen.

Later in that session, this time addressing representatives of the College Of Teachers who were giving evidence about their plan for “Chartered Teachers”, he made the following comments:

Neil Carmichael: We seem to be heading in the right direction, because there is a strong consensus developing that we do need to go down a professional approach to teaching, and a professional body to represent teachers. It would be best if that were organic through teachers.


Neil Carmichael: It is interesting; this Committee is coming up with something that could be quite a significant policy initiative, so let us develop it. … There are … 460,000 teachers in England, as far as I know. That is quite a big number that we have to get involved in this process. I think Graham [Stuart, the chair] has asked the question already, but I will ask it: how do you think we can move in the direction, if this is the direction that we want to move in, to get those 460,000 involved in a professional body?

At another session a week later, and still a week before the PTI meeting “invented” the idea, Neil Carmichael asked Michael Gove, as secretary of state, the following question:

So moving towards a professional body for teachers might be a way forward-to encourage them to take charge of their own destiny?

Now given the fact the Education Committee’s support for the College Of Teaching is seen as pivotal, and given that the idea of a new professional body was being raised by that committee in the weeks immediately before the PTI meeting where headteachers are meant to have come up with the idea, I’d suggest that Neil Carmichael MP (now chair of the education committee) be given more credit for getting this idea off of the ground.

And why does it matter who came up with the idea, politicians or teachers? It matters for two reasons. Firstly, because The College Of Teaching that is currently being proposed is not in any way a grassroots organisation. It’s an education establishment body set up by the vested interests, that so far has shown little interest in teachers, particularly those who aren’t SMT. The myth that teachers began this process is necessary if teachers are to be convinced that the College Of Teaching is something other than an attempt by the usual suspects to cash in on political good will.

Secondly, if the College Of Teaching was the child of the education select committee, then it is worth considering what evidence they found that it was needed and how much of that evidence came from people who wanted a new regulator, or a new way to judge and classify teachers, rather than a new voice for teachers. The point and purpose of a new professional body for teachers has always been confused and unclear. The actual circumstances of its birth, rather than the myth, serve only to highlight this.


Teaching Maths by @oldandrewuk

November 5, 2015


This is my contribution to the Starter For Five website, which collects advice for new teachers.

Originally posted on Starter for Five:

Name: Andrew Old
Twitter name: @oldandrewuk
Sector: Secondary
Subject taught (if applicable): Maths
Position: Teacher
What is your advice about? Teaching Maths

1: Do not attempt to teach “conceptual understanding” of something unless you have first checked with somebody with a maths degree that *you* understand it.

2: Practice is the key to fluency. While questions should get harder, never shy away from setting dozens of questions on the same thing.

3: Sort out the basics first: time tables, number bonds and the standard algorithms.

4: There usually is one best way to solve a problem, so teach it and ask students to stick to it until they are good at it.

5: Teach algebra like it is a language, not a set of methods. Explain what is meant by “=”, “solve”, “expressions”, “term”, “find”, “substitute”, “rearrange”, simplify” etc.

View original


What have women ever been allowed to do in the education system?

November 5, 2015

lorettaIn the last few months the extent of the patriarchal domination of education has been made clear by some brave campaigning organisations, willing to point out how rare it is to see a woman in a school, and how difficult it is to organise childcare for a job where you only get school holidays off.  Below are the minutes of a meeting of one such group, the Judean Women Teacher’s Front:

“The education system is oppressing us. It’s oppressing us in every way. And not just us, but our mothers and our mothers’ mothers.”

“And our mothers’ mothers’ mothers.”

“Yes. And our mothers’ mothers’ mothers’ mothers.”

“All right. Don’t labour the point. And what have we been been allowed to do in the education system?”


“Oh yeah, yeah most teachers are women . Yeah. That’s true.

“And senior management

“Oh yes… senior management. You remember how two thirds of deputy and assistant heads are women?”

“All right, I’ll grant you that teachers and senior managers are two things women are allowed to do in education.

“And headship…”

“Well yes obviously most headteachers are women… headship goes without saying. But apart from teaching, senior management and headship…”

“Being an academic in a university education department…”

Managing Ofqual, including being chair or CEO.”

Being an educational psychologist…”

“Yes… all right, fair enough…”

“And the Education Committee of the House of Commons?”

“Oh yes!”

“Yeah. That’s got something like 8 women out of 11 members”

Civil servants in the DfE“.

General Secretary of the NUT

And the NASUWT. And the ATL. And Voice“.

“All right… all right… but apart from teachers, and senior managers and heads and academics in university education departments and Ofqual’s managers and educational psychologists and the education select committee and civil servants in the department for education and general secretaries of teaching unions- at least 50% of the people in all these positions are women – what have  women been allowed to do education?”

Secretary of state for education!

“What!? Oh… secretary of state, yes… shut up!”

Update (about 5 minutes after posting): Actually, before I get murdered for this, I will add a short justification. The only point I am making is that education is a field dominated by women. That doesn’t mean no sexism exists. It doesn’t mean every part of the system is perfect. But it does mean that there is plenty to celebrate. The contribution of women to education is enormous. Men could not stop women in education if they tried. So why on earth should anyone promote a narrative about women being excluded and marginalised in education? Why is education not held up as an example? Why is the fact that 65% of heads are women not something used to encourage women into management in other sectors? Why should women teachers ever be portrayed as a class of victims, rather than leaders and professionals making a difference?


Share Advice For Trainees and New Teachers on the Starter For Five Blog

October 28, 2015

Can’t we have one meeting that doesn’t end with us digging up a corpse?

Mayor Quimby, the Simpsons.

I think my equivalent to Mayor Quimby’s question would be: “Can’t we have one discussion on Twitter that doesn’t end up with me setting up a new blog?”.

Last night I attempted to start a conversation about useful facts for new teachers and trainees to know. Instead of facts, I got opinions. Lots of opinions. So many opinions that I abandoned the facts conversation for another time and started to discuss what could be done with all this wisdom from experienced teachers that they were happy to share on Twitter. And so “Starter For Five” was born. This is a blog that will post advice for new teachers, collected around particular topics, and limited to 5 short pieces of advice per teacher per topic (each piece of advice is only a little longer than a tweet). You can look at it here. The idea is that (as it fills up) trainees and new teachers will be able to find advice from several experienced teachers on topics of their choice, by looking for the tags, categories or by searching.

If you would like to contribute (thanks), you can submit your 5 pieces of advice using the form below (or follow this link):


Please don’t expect your advice to appear on the blog immediately; that will take longer and we will have to check it follows the format (i.e. that it is about one specific topic). If you are not sure your contribution was submitted, just get in touch.

Thanks to (for creating the Google Form), (for designing and working on the blog) and (for coming up with the name of the blog).

Hopefully this will become a useful resource for new teachers. If you have any questions about it, ask in the comments below and I’ll try to answer them where everyone can see them.



This Blog’s 9th Birthday

October 24, 2015

Today is the 9th anniversary of the first post on this blog. It’s been on this site since 2009, but had three years before that in a couple of other places. I don’t know if this makes it the longest running UK blog by a teacher, I suspect that this depends on what kind of break is allowed before you say a blog has ceased to run and how you define “teacher”, but it is definitely one of the oldest.

My regularity in posting has declined this year mainly because inspiration and time have never been consistently available due to the nature of teaching, and after a couple of years of quite dramatic growth in hits, this year has been one of less frequent posting and activity. A lot of that comes down to a greater priority being given this year to blog-related projects outside of the main blog. In particular:

The last of these has been the most time-consuming, and I am hoping to make some changes to make it more manageable. Hopefully, then I will have the time to post more regularly on this blog.

Despite the smaller number of posts, there have still been some highlights of blogging this year. I’ll mention a few of them:

  • This week’s controversy over green pens and other marking policy nightmares;
  • Raising awareness over the education establishment’s take over of the proposed College Of Teaching;
  • An analysis of the arguments progressives have jumped on in the last couple of years (Part 1 and Part 2). The second part in particular identified two ludicrous arguments that have now become standard for shutting down debate.
  • A guest post about some very misleading research on P4C that was widely publicised;
  • Pointing out how wrong phonics denialists were about the accuracy of the phonics screening check;
  • A fairly heavy couple of posts about disagreement between traditionalists. (Part 1 and Part 2). Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to have sparked the debate I was looking for;
  • A summary of the Daily Mail’s hypocrisy on school discipline stories;
  • On “just teaching” and in praise of explanations explain my teaching philosophy.

I have no great plans for the next year beyond trying to increase the amount of blogging, but I’m hoping to keep debate going and traditionalist opinions out there. Thanks to all my readers for staying with me, and I hope you stick around to see me complete my first decade of blogging.


There’s One Thing Worse Than Green Pens

October 21, 2015

I’ve had further feedback on the green pen fad since I blogged and tweeted about it earlier. Apparently, many schools have schismed from the church of the green pen and follow instead the Purple Pen Of Progress.

I’m not joking. Mike Cladingbowl (formerly national director of OFSTED) suggested this as a joke:

But the Purple Pen of Progress is already a thing. Google it. After a correspondent suggested I do this, I did. And now I don’t know what to believe anymore.

Also, I found this:

May God have mercy on my soul.

Update 21/10/2015: As well as the former national director of OFSTED taking the mickey, we now have the current schools director not taking it entirely seriously:

Now please, does anyone here still think you are going to impress inspectors by enforcing the right shade of peer marking on your students? End the multi-colour madness.

(And even now I suspect some senior managers are asking: “If OFSTED don’t want to see purple pens for marking, then what do they expect us to do with them? Let’s ask a consultant.”)



Enough With The Green Pens!

October 21, 2015

The last two schools I worked at were not in any way related. They were in different local authorities. One was independent; one a state school in a MAT. Yet both of them had a policy that students should be marking (i.e. self-assessment or peer assessment) in green pen. Today, a teacher from London told me their school had the same policy. I asked about it on Twitter and got responses from schools in Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire, Tower Hamlets, Brent, Hampshire and many others saying it was school policy, and this included state schools and the independent sector. All had encountered the same phenomena.

Now, to be honest, I have only one problem with this policy and it won’t be a problem in all of these schools. It’s whether teachers have to distribute and collect in the damn green pens. If it’s the kids responsibility to bring a green pen and all the teachers have to do is say “use your green pen, now” then I don’t have a complaint. It will be what some teachers want and utterly harmless to other teachers to go along with it. However, if teachers have to change their routines before kids mark their books; hand out and collect in extra equipment; keep a class set of green pens ready or put kids in groups round pots of pens, then I would want the person who introduced the policy to have very good reasons for it.

And do they? Well, some teachers like kids to do marking in green pen, particularly if it involves redrafting as it makes it clear to that teacher what is the original work (blue or black), what is redrafting or corrections (green) and what is the teacher’s marking (red). In a decade and a half of teaching maths I’ve never had a problem distinguishing between students’ work, their marking and my marking , but perhaps it’s less clear in other subjects. And if a school has plenty of teachers who like to use this system, then ensuring the kids have their own green pens ready might help some teachers and is fine with me. That’s enough justification for that version of the policy.

However, if teachers are having to make an effort to get green pens in and out – if it is a source of work – then some teachers liking it is not enough. Those teachers who like green pens can make the effort; those who don’t, shouldn’t be made to. It is in this case that it is baffling to know why so many schools are compelling teachers to comply with this. When I asked about it, the most common answers I received were about it being convenient for managers who want to check that the marking policy, which might involve students responding to teachers’ comments, or even teachers responding to students responding to teachers, can be enforced. So, in effect, these are schools with a marking policy that creates extra work for the teachers both in lessons, and when marking, and extra work for managers who have to enforce it. In other words, an unwieldy mess of a marking policy. Sometimes the green pen phenomena was linked to other such marking policy messes as (compulsory) DIRT and dialogic marking. So much so that one tweeter even talked about being told that teachers must have “green pen training” in order to mark correctly.

So that leaves two questions:

  1. Why are schools still investing in these over-prescriptive marking policies?
  2. How are the details of the policy getting communicated between schools? (i.e. why green pen, and not, say, pencil?)

The answer to the first question is, probably, OFSTED, or at least rumours of what OFSTED want. The first stories of ridiculous marking policies seem to correspond to the start of OFSTED’s greater emphasis on looking in books (a by-product of moving away from judging teaching styles). But this is old news. Both the lastest OFSTED handbook, and some earlier clarification material, make it clear that there is no model marking policy (least of all one involving green pen) that they are looking for, that the marking policies can accept that what is required varies between subjects and that they inspectors should not be adding to “unnecessary workload”:

  • Ofsted recognises that marking and feedback to pupils, both written and oral, are important aspects of assessment. However, Ofsted does not expect to see any specific frequency, type or volume of marking and feedback; these are for the school to decide through its assessment policy. Marking and feedback should be consistent with that policy, which may cater for different subjects and different age groups of pupils in different ways, in order to be effective and efficient in promoting learning.
  • While inspectors will consider how written and oral feedback is used to promote learning, Ofsted does not expect to see any written record of oral feedback provided to pupils by teachers.
  • If it is necessary for inspectors to identify marking as an area for improvement for a school, they will pay careful attention to the way recommendations are written to ensure that these do not drive unnecessary workload for teachers.

And, knowing the background, I think I can safely assume this was a response to schools justifying burdensome marking policies on the basis of OFSTED. Teachers need to point this out.

As for the other question, how the green pen idea spread, I’m still puzzling over that one. It’s harder to spread misinformation online these days without somebody pointing out what OFSTED actually want. There are far fewer LA consultants to spread this guff. Inspectors can no longer use that position to advertise private consultancy work. So how did this fad spread? Via word of mouth? Via managers? Through private consultants? A conspiracy by Bic? Even those defending the green pen policy couldn’t tell me where they got it from.

If we could find out how these fads spread, and find out how to stop them spreading, we could do a lot to improve education in this country. In the meantime, all I can ask is that if you are a school leader and you are making teachers hand out green pens five times a day, just stop it. And if you are an inspector, and you see this happening in lessons, then why not mention that the green pen marking policy wastes time in lessons in the report? Do that just once, and let people on social media know which report it was in, and you will have given teachers a powerful weapon for restoring sanity to marking.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,667 other followers

%d bloggers like this: