184 Peter Harrod and Trevor Kerry
Close, J., Rudd, W.G.A., and Plimmer, F. (1974) Team Teaching Experiments Windsor: NFER
Dean, J. (1970) ‘Team teaching’ New Era 53: 6
Dewhurst, J. and Tamburrini, J. (1978) ‘Team teaching in primary schools’ Education 3–13 6 (2):
19–24
Freeman, J. (1969) Team Teaching in Britain London: Ward Lock Educational
Goetz, K. (2000) ‘Perspectives on team teaching’ Egallery 1 (4) available on http://www.ucalgary.
ca/~egallery (accessed 31March 2009)
Jang, Syh-Jong (2006) ‘Research on the effects of team teaching upon two secondary school teachers’
Educational Research 48 (2): 177–94
Kerry, T. and Wilding, M. (2004) Effective Classroom Teacher London: Pearson
Loeser, J. (2008) ‘Team teaching’ EBSCOHOST website, Research Starters, Education, Team
Teaching
Maroney, S. (1995) ‘Team teaching’ http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfsam1/TeamTchg.html
Northern Nevada Writing Project (1996) Team Teaching: the Northern Nevada Writing Project
Teacher-Researcher Group York, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers
O’Neill, M. and Worrall, M. (undated: probably 1972) Team Teaching in a Primary School Newcastle
University: Institute of Education
Plowden Report (1967) Children and Their Primary Schools London: HMSO
Robinson, B. and Schaible, R. (1995) ‘Collaborative teaching: reaping the benefits’ College Teaching
43 (2): 57–60
Shaplin, J.T. and Olds, H.F. (1964) Team Teaching New York: Harper and Row
Taylor, M. (1974) Team Teaching Experiments Windsor: NFER
Trump, J. L. (1959) Images of the Future Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation
Warwick, D. (1971) Team Teaching London: University of London Press
Worrall, P., Mitson, R., and Dorrance, E.B. (1970) Teaching from Strength: an introduction to team
teaching London: Hamish Hamilton
www.teachingexpertise.com
Postscript
Trevor Kerry
This book might fairly be construed as having been written to promote a particular view
about the nature of learning: a cross-curricular view. In the process, hopefully, it is has
indicated that it is a view that holds in high esteem the notion of quality in learning.
The emphasis of this text, then, has been on learning rather than teaching. But that does
not mean that teaching – and teachers – are unimportant. The skill of the teacher is the glue
that holds learning together. Teaching is the quiet facilitation that ensures learning happens
and can be articulated.
It’s like those weird spectacles at the movies: you can shut one eye and everything is green
(learning); shut the other and everything is red (teaching); open both and everything is
stunningly three-dimensional. Learning and teaching work together to produce real
education.
So it is fitting to end this volume not with reflections on learning: there have been many of
those throughout the text. Rather, the Postscript will deal with some thoughts about teaching.
In making the points that are about to be made, the writer is only too aware that some
readers may take umbrage. It is a risk that has to be taken. Let me make just this plea: read
to the end before you reject the thesis. Then, once the evidence is marshalled, if it falls short
– jettison it.
The thesis is this. Teachers, as a group in society, have been in danger of losing their role
as community experts and degenerating into being kings or queens of the pub quiz. We,
collectively, need to rescue ourselves from this fate.
What do I mean by that? Go back a century (many of your schools will have log books
stretching back that far, so you can trace the process out for yourself) and the schoolteacher
was one of the few intellectuals in the community. She (it was often a ‘she’ in the primary
sector even then) ranked with the squire, the parson, and the doctor as the academic elite of
the community.
Since then there have been many changes. Leave aside issues of salary, gender equality,
class, and so on: just hang on to the notion of intellectualism. Ask yourself: would that
situation still be true today?
Even in villages, very few teachers could post an honest ‘Yes’ to that question. So let us
delve a little into why not; and then speculate on what might be done about it.
The thesis here is that, in recent decades, there has been a steady and deliberate erosion
of the profession of teaching. There have been three main routes through which this erosion
has operated, the first two being deliberately constructed.
The first route is via the political control of schools and schooling. This reached its zenith
in 1988 with the introduction of the National Curriculum, closely followed by the
186 Trevor Kerry
establishment of a police force to monitor its implementation: Ofsted. It was inevitable that,
at the start of initiatives like these, their application should be seen as totalitarian and
unquestionable. Colin Richards (2001: 28) sums this up well:
Despite introducing a national curriculum, the conservative government of 1988 did
not provide a rationale for the curriculum or even consider that one was desirable. The
only semblance of a rationale was given in what civil servants in 1988 disparagingly
called the ‘motherhood and apple pie’ clauses of section 1 of the Education Reform
Act, which entitled every pupil in a state school to a balanced (never defined) curri-
culum which (a) promoted the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical develop-
ment (never defined) of the pupils at the school and of society (never clarified); and (b)
prepared such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life
(but presumably not life in the here and now!).
There followed through the 1990s, according to Richards – and he is right – periods of
rethinking in the face of poorly formulated NC requirements, and equivocal research results
about whether the National Curriculum was working or not. But, regardless of success or
failure, other features of the educational scene militated against teachers’ professionalism.
Richards lists, for example, measurable targets, preoccupation with inspection, publication
of performance tables, increasing assessment loads on pupils in primary schools, the
‘standards’ game played by schools to release themselves from, or evade, special measures,
and the urge to ape so-called benchmark schools that followed the government’s require-
ments strictly to the letter. This is a climate in which teacher professionalism cannot grow
or flourish; it must inevitably wither.
Alongside this deeply negative view of the 1990s has to run the obsession of governments
of both colours with Ofsted, and in particular with the Chief Inspector. In terms of insights
into primary education, it is highly doubtful whether Woodhead, who occupied the post for
six years, would have made a credible candidate for his post against any criteria compiled by
primary experts of the time. Any fair-minded person can read Woodhead’s column in the
national press since he left the role and discover that he could hardly be further from
espousing the philosophy of a state comprehensive system of education as a universal social
good. But the wonderful irony is: even he feels now that Ofsted (without his presence?) is
‘irrelevant’. In a Guardian article, MacLeod sums it up like this:
Woodhead, who led Ofsted from 1994 to 2000 before falling out with the education
secretary David Blunkett – not exactly a fan of trendy methods himself – told the
Economist that the inspection regime was ‘an exercise driven by the analysis of the data,
and as such, I think, contributes very little to a school’s understanding of what it’s
doing.
‘It has become part of the problem in another, perhaps more sinister, way. It has
become an agent of state enforcement.’
A change of heart by the old enforcer? Well, no. It’s more that Ofsted is no longer
following his policies.
So, from 1988 through the 1990s there was a steady erosion in schools of teacher
autonomy, and with it a loss of professionalism: this last had no opportunity for exercise. It
Postscript 187
was like a dog shut in a kennel, and dogs shut in kennels lose condition. Menter et al. (1997:
136–8) sum the situation up from a more theoretical perspective, identifying the resulting
stress:
Managers in our study [of primary schools] felt levels of stress, ambiguity and
ambivalence that paralleled the reported anxieties of teachers . . . We should note the
departure of experienced heads from the profession . . . Primary school work is no
longer integrated, unalienated labour . . . it was possible to discern a paradigm shift in
the nature of education management towards managerialism . . . We hope that our
critical perspective on the new managerialism will reinforce strategies of resistance to it,
and lend some support to education workers who feel themselves trapped in the
ambivalence and ambiguity. (My emphasis)
But there was worse. The second route to the erosion of the teaching profession came
through its recruitment and training. Teacher education during the period became firmly
teacher training. If schools could be defined for effectiveness by the extent to which they
achieved measurable targets, then teacher education was just a matter of giving the
instructors the tools to enable pupils to hit those targets. If schools failed to reach prescribed
levels of performance, it had nothing to do with social issues, health, nutrition, income,
housing, resources, or parental support – it simply indicated that the teachers responsible
were inefficient or inadequate. Teaching as a profession was eroded by teaching as a craft.
(Ofsted inspectors themselves were trained using exactly these methods.) This is a recipe for
deskilling: but then, it was intended to be. Welch and Mahoney (2000) outline the issues
well. In the period under review governments wanted to reserve power in education to
themselves, and they did this by eroding the influence of Local Authorities and depro-
fessionalising teachers. As a strategy, it almost worked.
Then, of course, there was the third important factor in the change of teachers’ pro-
fessionalism: social context. A hundred years ago educated people were at a premium, now
they are commonplace. In the space of less than a lifetime access to higher education has
risen from 5 per cent of the population to 50 per cent. While at one time the teacher was
probably one of a handful of graduates in the community, now many parents of pupils
are better qualified than the teacher in many communities. Though there are moves afoot
for all teachers to possess masters’ degrees, the success of this will depend on a number
of factors. Most pressing are these. First, will finance be found to make this happen, and
how quickly? Second, will the new degrees have the ‘painting by numbers’ characteristics
that have dogged other government-controlled qualifications? Teachers can no longer
expect to form an elite by qualification alone. So where else do they look to regain
credibility? It has to be from within the expertise that defines pedagogy – that’s what
teaching is about.
But just as I began this book on a note of joy (see Preface), so it is possible to end on a
note of hope. Many of the negative initiatives noted above have either been but partially
successful, or they have failed, or they have been revealed for the deceptions they were. With
the advent in 2009 of not just one, but two, influential Reports (Alexander and Rose) on
the development of more effective primary education, there have been two results –
considered throughout this book – which are cause for great rejoicing. The first is the
loosening of the curriculum straitjacket as our authors have described. The second is the
rediscovery, in the process, of a degree of teacher autonomy.
188 Trevor Kerry
This growth in autonomy is a platform for potential growth within, and of, the pro-
fession. Just as when Moses led the enslaved Israelites out of Egypt it needed a generation
to pass over who had known nothing but enslavement, so for our profession it may need
time for teachers whose training was honed in the 1980s and 1990s to become educated to
the new professionalism. But even if it takes a time, it is an opportunity that cannot be
squandered. Too many people have invested too much time and too much energy in
bringing it about for the new freedom to be jettisoned so easily this time round.
So I want to end this book with a vision. The vision is this: teachers need to rediscover
their professionalism and be proud of it. To do that they need to be able to develop a philos-
ophy for what they do. Such a philosophy:
• Articulates our own ideas
• Takes on board an awareness of others’ ideas
• Teaches rules of logical and coherent thinking
• Is the basis of values
• Encourages us to think about questions of ultimate concern
• Influences what we do and how we act.
Developing a professional philosophy stretches us. We gain a new intellectualism. Not the
intellectualism beloved of many academics, of obscurity, obfuscation, and unintelligibility.
But an intellectualism based on curiosity, insight, wisdom, and judgement. Teachers will
then have regained the ground of being among the elite of the community.
References
MacLeod, D. (2009) ‘Woodhead says Ofsted is irrelevant: change of heart or sour grapes?’ Guardian
22 May 2009
Menter, I., Muschamp, Y., Nicholls, P., Ozga, J., and Pollard, A. (1997) Work and Identity in the
Primary School Buckingham: Open University Press
Richards, C. (2001) Changing English Primary Education: retrospect and prospect Stoke on Trent:
Trentham Books
Welch, G. and Mahoney, P. (2000) ‘The teaching profession’ in J. Docking (2000) New Labour’s
Policies for Schools London: David Fulton: 139–57
Index
ability, levels of 173 gifted and talented 82, 106–22; identification of
accountability 88, 89 106, 109–10
Alexander, Robin xv, 82, 88, 131, 187
Assessing Pupil Progress (APP) 117, 137, governors, role of 106, 113, 116–17
149–50 Harrod, Peter 3, 173–84
assessment 16–17, 23, 29, 53 56, 66–8, 72, 74, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI) 3, 100, 127
Higher Level Teaching Assistant 95, 177
91, 99, 101–4, 105, 108–11, 112–13, 115,
117, 126, 132–4, 137, 139, 142–56, 177, inclusion, concept of 79–94, 138
181–2, 186; formative 145; peer 111 Information and Communications Technology
Assessment for Learning (AfL) 112, 117, 126,
143–6, 155 (ICT) 168–70
Initial Teacher Training (ITT) 129
Beatrix Potter school 3, 159–63 integrated studies see cross-curricular studies
Bedford, Alex 2, 79–94 intelligences, multiple 13, 26, 108, 110
Bloom, Benjamin 1, 14, 21–2, 29, 34, 108,
Johnston, Jane 2, 52–64
116
Bowring-Carr, Christopher 1, 21, 25–6, 29 Kerry, Carolle 2, 106–22
Kerry, Trevor xv, 2, 3, 7–34, 53, 57, 73, 108,
Cambridge Primary Review xv, 39, 44–5, 65,
74–5, 107, 109–10, 127 113, 125, 137, 157–88
Key Stage 1 (KS1) 2, 52–65, 102
cognitive demand 106–9, 173 Key Stage 2 (KS2) 2, 65–75
creativity 30, 48, 59–62, 95, 100 Key Stage 3 (KS3) 12
cross-curricular studies, philosophy of 7–20 knowledge, forms of 10, 107
culture 41–2, 46, 97–8
curriculum 8, 79, 101; balance 70; CELTIC 13; ‘laissez-faire’ approaches 44
Lambert, Sue 2, 106–22
freedom 47; mapping 104; planning 128; Laurie, Judith 3, 125–41
reform 17 learning: active 46; autonomy in 41;
Dewey, John 143 child-centred 39, 42, 46, 52; child-initiated
dialogue, reflective 146–7 39–41, 46, 48–9; experiential 154; life-long
differentiation 16, 55–6, 81, 112–13, 117, 126, 106, 108; models of 87, 91, 107–9, 127;
needs in 57; outcomes from 176; outdoors
138–40, 148, 174, 181 45; personalised 97, 102, 157; prior 67;
scaffolding of 137; social 176; styles of 73,
Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) 39, 47, 157, 159, 176, 178; learning objectives 149
57, 142, 180 Learning Support Assistants see Teaching
Assistants
Farmery, Christine 2, 65–75
feedback, to pupils 147 marking 147
Fisher, Robert 1, 21, 24 media, use of 157–72
Foulkes, Pat 2, 95–105 metacognition 27, 159
Gardener, Howard 1, 21, 25–6, 108, 110
190 Index
motivation 56–7, 72, 154 skills, core 137
skills, transferable 131, 134, 143
National Curriculum xiv, 1, 10–15, 17–18, social constructivism 146
28–9, 39. 41, 52–3, 65–7, 73, 107, social interaction 50, 62, 93
111–12, 117, 126, 129, 131–3, 137, social justice 93
142–4, 149, 150–3, 160, 163, 179, 182, special educational needs 79–94, 96, 100, 181
185–6 South Hykeham Community Primary School
Neale, Steph 160 112, 117–18, 121
needs, meeting individual 56, 83, 93, 101, 104 subject disciplines 8, 9, 107, 128
subject leaders 133
Ofsted 3, 12, 16, 18, 81, 88, 107, 125, 128–30, support staff see Teaching Assistants
138, 144, 179, 186–7
TASC 23–4, 29, 34, 122
open-plan schools 178 Taylor, Kathleen 3, 146–56
teaching and learning, principles of 74
Parsons, Kate 2, 79–94 Teaching Assistants 84, 95–105
pedagogy 39–41, 43–4, 82, 88, 176 team teaching 3, 173–84; models of 179
planning xvi, 3, 21, 43–5, 48, 52–7, 65–8, 74, themed weeks 2, 59, 106, 112–21, 170–1
thinking, children’s 21, 29, 30
88, 91, 95–7, 99, 104, 114, 116–17, thinking, higher order 108–9, 11, 113, 115–16,
125–55, 159, 167, 173, 176; collaborative
125; levels of 125–6; models of 125 169
play 40–1, 43
plenary sessions 145–6 values 89
Plowden Report 7, 10–14, 16–19, 66, 179 video-conferencing 167
Priory Witham Academy School 180–2 visual literacy 163–6
pupil voice 106, 118
questions, classroom 55, 57, 111 Wallace, Belle 1, 21, 23, 112
Wallis, Jill 2, 95–105
representation, forms of 11 West-Burnham, John 1, 21, 25–6, 29
resources, preparation of 100 whole class work 174, 183
Richardson, John 2, 106–22 Wilding, Mandy 1, 21, 27–8, 159, 173
Rose Review xiv, xv, 18, 39, 53, 65, 59, 61, 74, Wood, Elizabeth 1, 39–51
108, 121, 126–7, 131 zone of proximal development (ZPD) 146
Rose, Sir Jim xv, 105, 187