Teachers should prove subject knowledge is up-to-date or lose qualified status suggests Ofsted boss

[noblegiraffe]

"Teachers should have to prove their subject knowledge is up-to-date at regular intervals to maintain their qualified status, a top Ofsted boss has said.

Professor Daniel Muijs (pictured), the watchdog’s head of research, said he supported a “periodic requirement” for teachers to demonstrate they know about the latest research and discoveries in their subject area."

schoolsweek.co.uk/ofsted-boss-calls-for-teachers-to-prove-subject-knowledge-to-stay-qualified/

Hahahahahahahaaa what planet is he living on?

By rising up against the Blob!?? Oh wait, that's us...

I tried ' there is no evidence that this works' last week...I was glared at.

Going back to keeping up-to-date with subject knowledge, maths teachers around the country are quite happy to be tested on this.

Yep, still can do Pythagoras, fractions, solving quadratics, calculus. I'm not sure I teach anything that's less than 100 years old. If maths were science 'up-to-date' would be the plum pudding model of the atom

That's exactly why we need a critical mass Piggy.

But what information, Fallen? Do we want a bunch of teachers who have read Hattie saying that class size doesn't matter or homework is irrelevant? Or that mixed ability teaching is the solution to society's woes?
There isn't a consensus.

Maths teachers might be happy to be tested. All teachers who teach Maths might not be though if it includes calculus! I am currently a non specialist Maths teacher. Recruiting Maths teachers into Alternative Provision is, e.g., tricky. If I risked losing my QTS my school would lose me, for sure. I am pretty chuffed that I can do my son's A level Maths work, so I might be OK...

If teaching outside your subject meant that you were in danger of losing your QTS, then they might find it a bit harder to get teachers to do it. They'd start demanding to have training in that subject and that would be expensive.

Which is one major reason why this idea is a total non-starter.

I know there isn't a concensus. I can't see how there ever will be, in social science. Hattie is pretty much standard now. But it's also pretty easy to find the issues with his effect sizes. It would some up in discussion if discussion were had. The problem is lack of discussion.

There can't be a discussion when people don't understand how to critically evaluate research. Hattie is a pile of crap. It's mashing together apples and bananas and rating the resultant fruit salad. The only discussion to be had about Hattie is 'bin it or burn it?'.

But SLT cling to stuff like that. Because what else have they got?
It's like the obsession with data. Total rubbish. But without the data how can they possibly evaluate progress?

You seem to be critically evaluating Hattie right there.

As long as educational research is happening, I think all teachers should be taking an interest in the debates that are being had. Mostly so that they are aware that pretty much everything is debated. My boss was truly surprised about Hattie when I showed him.

I'm not an average classroom teacher in that regard though. I'm a mathematician with a background in clinical research.
A lot of people, and that includes teachers, are frightened of, or are overly impressed by statistics, and not many understand how to properly conduct research.
I'm not great at it myself, although better than average. BUT no one is going to listen to me about anything.

Ah, well, I also used to be a researcher (although in the sciences) and in addition have the healthy scepticism of social science that comes from doing a subsequent psychology degree with a "hard" science background. I have also been on SLTs and did get to have a voice. Maybe it's the colleagues I've worked with that make me think a critical mass is possible.

You're not an average classroom teacher either then! I guess the science and maths departments have an advantage.

My school might be particularly top-down, I don't know. But as a part-timer no one cares what I think about anything.

noble I can safely tell you that 90% of my SLT will not have a Scooby who Hattie is.

To y mind , you see, my whole school is lovingly and unquestioningly welded to the idea of setting by ability (it isn't just Hattie who writes about it) because one member of SLT once came along and said that was the right way to do it. Of course, maths has always setted but not so English , for example, which can't seem to break free of it in any way. Dogma at both ends of the scale. I would rather something was in existence because of educational thinking than because it pleases the parents of the high achieving children

I agree we need a critical mass but in lots of schools the word critical isn't used, sadly, the way you use it madonna and the people on SLT in some schools are the least likely to be engaging in nay educational research or reading as they have got where they want to be! For example, all the useful stuff about workload and marking being debated on Twitter has not made an impact in the vast majority of schools. You just need to look at N to see that.

I think this man's idea could change that culture but I suspect staff will be squirreling away on their own learning, juts as they do for MA credits with no impact at whole school level.

Typos galore! Hopefully, you get the drift!

90% of my SLT will not have a Scooby who Hattie is. really?

I mean, I know I've not been allowed out on a training course in nearly a decade, but I assumed SLT actually got CPD that wasn't just a pile of post-its and a 'discuss with your partner your top ways to engage disaffected boys'. How do they hear about stuff like Growth Mindset then?

Teacher Tapp asked about Piaget and Vygotsky a while back, maybe they could do a question about Hattie. Teacher Tapp represents probably quite engaged teachers though.

Teacher Tapp are definitely very engaged teachers!

They hear about Growth Mindset via several trickles of info : one person goes on a course and then happens to have a chat about it. So we have some pet projects. But , tbh, we have very little CPD on stuff like Growth Mindset. It's all data! Our SLT are , how shall I put it, older and very established. Most of them have worked in one or two schools : not always a bad thing (as it also describes me!) but it hasn't forced them to look outwards. We also aren't a MAT. As I mentioned a while back on another thread, the CPD section of our library had not been updated for 15 years. Now that I have updated it, no one has borrowed a book, apart from me!

I think the head gets various bits and bobs through ASCL but is quite selective on what he chooses to disseminate.

Again, not a bad thing (necessarily) before I cause offence : every member of our SLT is a science teacher. Every Single One (well the extended team has two history teachers but they hide them)

Don't forget this is the school which still makes trainees put VAK on lesson plans.

We are not a MAT but our SLT are mostly inexperienced and from in house. It is very top down and middle management are told to make staff ‘toe the party line’ and ‘support SLT’. I sometimes privately muse if they don’t want anyone out of house in School case it exposes their incompetence to anyone new.

I once sat in a training session with our now headteacher who made us do an exercise with Hattie. He was surprised that I had heard of it and asked us to place activities on a graph to illustrate the cost V impact. The session was about doing one thing which was expensive(staffing needs) so I said I assume it is very effective and that is why are doing it. It was not shown to be very effective so I was left rather confused about the the whole point of the exercise and the type of intervention.

Classroom teachers are allowed to make very few decisions about what actually happens in their classroom. Occasionally they pretend we can by making us do a working group on a issue and then half way through they give us the new policy on it and ask our opinion, which they ignore and then want staff to present the policy to whole school as coming from staff. They think staff can’t see through what is happening. One member of staff did a MA and their research project was on a incarnation of popular educationally theory at the time and the result of his research was it would not have a positive impact and be time confused for staff. It was implemented.

We're all in house too. One AH was appointed form outside : sort of. he went to the school and was friends with the son of a DH! The rest all came form within and I agree with all your thinking on that.

90% of my SLT will not have a Scooby who Hattie is

Go on then, I'll bite.
Who is she ?

A trite observation perhaps - but I studied my subject because I was fascinated by it. There is plenty in everyday teaching to fascinate - for example I had a discussion in a Functional Maths Level 2 class about pi - was it discovered or invented? That's a profound question, which goes well beyond mathematics. However it would have been nice to have the time and head space to revisit, say, Number Theory, and be inspired again. Which would make me a better teacher, in my view. Yes I suppose I could have done it in my own time, but, you know, kids, elderly parents, life...

back

Hattie Jacques , obviously.

Aha, Eric Sykes' sister. Taps nose.

Great in the Carry On films, crap in the area of systematic reviews.

Going back to being tested on your subject knowledge - they've just given trainees infinite chances to pass the skills tests, so it'd be only fair that we'd get infinite chances to pass a subject knowledge test too.