On Social Mobility

At a recent governors conference I suggested that one way of focusing on how to improve the school was to try and close the achievement gap between private and state schools. I had recently challenged our students in years 11 to 13 to not settle in life with the current status quo and highlighted that our top politicians, bankers and chief executives disproportionately come from a private education background. I suggested that the difference between our school's facilities and the quality of teaching was not significant enough to justify the gap. The gap, I proposed, exists because of what the students do out of the class. What happens between the hours of 4 and 10 in the life of a privately educated student and a state educated student?

I spent a week at Eton College as a sixth former, an eye-opening experience that added much to my fledgling views on social mobility. I was intrigued by their school day with formal lessons ending at 13.15 (12.25 on a Saturday). The afternoon and evening were far from free with activities and clubs running until supper at 19.40. The school absolutely consumed your every waking hour. Students were expected to focus on study in their time out of class with virtually all recreational activities planned, structured and supervised. Completion of prep (homework) was non-negotiable with expectations of both quality and quantity being high.

Privately educated students - study and sleep give them a foot up

What about state school children? Clearly there are vast differences between the out of class experiences of children across the country and these observations are based on my own experience which maybe clouded by dealing with the more problematic cases. I think it is quite common for my students to 'go out' as soon as they finish school. I sense this is a pastime that starts early in life, often before they start secondary school and that they often won't return home until 7 or 8 o'clock. When they get home they may hastily consume a meal that has been left for them or maybe they'll cook themselves some toast. Access to new technologies could mean that students have vast opportunities to study, but I propose this actually means that time is dominated by social media activity or game playing. I frequently hear students saying that they have been playing on their X Box until the early hours. Lights out at Eton is at 21.30.

My hunch is that a student at private school is engaged in between 2 to 4 hours worth of additional study per day compared to a state educated student between the hours of 16:00 and 21:00. Privately educated students are also receiving more sleep, perhaps an additional two hours per night. This additional study and additional sleep is going to add up in terms of their readiness to learn and ultimately their educational achievement. 

I have no doubt that this comes at some kind of social cost but would propose that action should be taken to redress the balance. Age-old attempts to engage students in independent learning should be accelerated through a combination of exploiting opportunities arising from new technology and initiating a greater engagement with parents, especially those that are the hardest to reach. 

Eek, watch out for Keek!

My kids love ‘You’ve Been Framed’ or as they call it, ‘Funny People Falling Over’ and they’re not alone. The show has been running since 1991 and still occupies some of ITV’s prime viewing points with repeats seemingly on a loop on ITV2. It seems that however many times we see someone falling off a bike/trampoline/roof or a cat getting spooked or a dog going mad or a baby just kind of existing we just don’t get tired of the format. The success of YBF is replicated across many countries and seems to tap into a fairly primitive human instinct to laugh at other people. Of course YBF, and especially with the narrating genius of Harry Hill, is harmless fun. We can all have a laugh, no-one gets hurt and the contributor pockets £250 (although I think this should go to whomever or whatever was the butt of the joke, cats included).

Beadle - he'd have loved Keek

Since 2005 YouTube has, to some extent, fed off the popularity of this genre of TV show. Many of the most popular YouTube clips fit into the YBF model, the most viewed clip being ‘Charlie bit my finger, again’ with more than 528 million hits at the time of writing. But, because YouTube is not edited or censored in the same way as a mainstream TV programme it also leaks in the obscure, the surreal, the avant-garde, the magnificent, the abusive, the vile and the violent kind of clips that would never be seen on YBF. ‘Happy-slapping’ started to become a problem around 2004-5 (see Guardian article) when mobile phones were introduced with video capability and sites like YouTube emerged where these acts could be shared with the masses.

For many schools their experience of social media has moved from the early horror of not knowing how to control the technology which only ever seemed to promote negative behaviour to an understanding that both uses and abuses have been opened up by the opportunity to share so easily. Most schools now have a presence on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc, and many are seeking to incorporate social media into the daily learning experiences of their students. We still have to contend with friendship issues being played out on BBM and are still surprised at the language used by teenagers when communicating on Twitter, but on the whole we’re are starting to feel that we understand the phenomena and can engage with our students on a relatively level playing field.

But it seems the industry is intent on introducing new sites which seek to exploit the negative aspects of social media and ensure that teachers and parents remain one step behind. Ask.fm is a Latvian-based social networking site that allows users to remain anonymous in their interactions with each other. This essentially leads to the most awful, uncensored teenage communications imaginable and has been linked in the press to a number of suicides. Last week, while investigating an incident of bullying at my school that resulted in an inappropriate video being posted online, I came across the video sharing site, ‘Keek’.

Keek allows users to “Share 36-second video updates via webcam, iPhone, Android or Blackberry. Posting keeks is a fun way to meet new people, stay up to date with friends and tell the world what you're up to in real time.” That’s right, ‘keeks’ have a 36 second limit. Now I’m a big fan of using video to engage and educate and I’m happy to embrace new ideas that I can see may have some practical use, but what can you capture in a 36 second video ... ? Exactly. The most popular keek at the time of writing is Kim Kardashian filming her sister sun-bathing – I don’t recommend wasting these precious seconds in your life watching it. In fact, the Kardashians seem to be all over Keek which might be reason enough to steer clear. But it seems the 36 second limit provides a great opportunity for people to either abuse others, physically or verbally, or to promote their sexual assets to vast audience of shallow consumers who have been raised on a diet of pornography and reality TV. It is, I’m afraid, the ideal hunting ground of teenage abusers and narcissists.

Keek, and the even more abbreviated video sharing app, Vine, which restricts you to 6 seconds, are tapping into the Twitterisation of communication. Brevity is king in the modern age.  Now, 6 seconds potentially creates the same issues as 36 seconds, but it also introduces an element of genuine challenge for film makers. Could you set students the task of creating a video of 6 seconds to help explain/illustrate something? Schools should be aware of Keek and Vine but maybe like Facebook and Twitter before, the answer is for educators to occupy these places so that the benefits can be exploited at the same time as having to pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong.

On Cliques, Critiques and Anonymous Tweets

I’ve always been a little slow on the uptake. You could accuse me of many things, but bandwagon jumping probably isn’t one. I took up smoking in my late teens having previously never touched a cigarette and gave it up in my mid twenties because it was unhealthy and anti-social. I had my first mobile phone in my mid twenties, long after others had embraced the new technology, and have kept one ever since because they’re really useful and an essential piece of today’s life kit. I’ve now been using Twitter for 6 months (again, not quite on-trend) and am considering whether it goes the way of the cigarette or the mobile phone. Would I encourage someone to take up smoking? No. Would I recommend having a mobile phone? Well yes. Would I encourage teachers to get involved with Twitter? Hmmm...

Time is a precious commodity for all of us, and as professionals we need to prioritise carefully to ensure that we are making the best use of the time available to us, both in terms of our work and our ‘other’ lives. Twitter, and by extension, blogging, can be very time-consuming. Very few people would have ‘engaging with social media’ as part of their job description so such activities tend to be on top of or at the expense of other responsibilities. I have been amazed over the last few months at the frequency of Twitter activity amongst some educators. This doesn’t just include tweets but also the abundance of blogs and other related on-line activity that is promoted on Twitter. Many of these blogs, often written by English teachers, are excellent and contribute valuable thoughts and ideas. I have shared many with colleagues at school and used them to stimulate discussions and CPD opportunities. But where do they get the time?!

Parents often voice their concerns to me about how much time teenagers spend using social media and we discuss the pressure that they are often put under to maintain high-frequency communications and the paranoia that is often associated with this media – ‘have I missed anything?’, ‘are people talking about me?’, ‘I need to post comments or people might stop following me’, ‘I need to have more friends/followers otherwise people might think I’m not cool/interesting/popular/attractive.’ I sense that these are not feelings which are limited to teenagers. The accumulation of followers on Twitter seems to become a preoccupation for many, a form of competition for some and the basis of gloating for others. How many followers do you need? The British anthropologist, Robin Dunbar, suggested that the limit to the number of people whom one can maintain stable social relationships is between 100 and 230 (150 is often cited as the value known as Dunbar’s number). For many Twitter and blogging in its wider sense is a great way to reflect on practice and to develop networks and share ideas – this is a good use of time. But if it becomes an obsession eating away at time that could be spent more productively, whether on professional or personal relationships, then I would certainly advise caution.

Twitter is a magnificent breeding ground for cliques. Again, this is something that I often discuss with students and parents, warning them how easy it is for groups to be set up which can isolate others. And while on the one hand we might advise young people about the dangers of on-line cliques, especially with people that we don’t personally know, on the other it seems that teachers on Twitter (tweachers?!) often encourage the formation of groups which can make others feel isolated. I can see how PLNs (Personal Learning Networks) work and how Twitter can be a great way for people to communicate with like-minded professionals. However, unlike a conference call or a face-to-face meeting these Twitter networks are acted out on a very public stage. What does this say about those not included in the shout-outs or the professional back-slapping? While Twitter offers wonderful opportunities to share practice and engage in educational debate outside of your own institution, it can also trap people in the same issues of belonging and sycophancy that are associated with adolescent cliques.

I started blogging shortly before I started to use Twitter (about 6 months ago). This was largely to collect my ideas on the topic of social media in education which I have been speaking about in various forums over the last few years. For me blogging is very different from the more formal writing that I might do for academic research or other contributions to education. Primarily blogging is more of an aide-memoir, an opportunity to get ideas and thoughts down so they are not lost. But blogging is also a form of social media and my Blogger site can be accessed by anyone – this introduces an element of professionalism and responsibility which would be absent from private scribbling. I am more than happy to have my work critiqued, especially if I have chosen to make it public. Fortunately not many people read my blogs and as a result I haven’t received much critique, but to be honest this is not what I’m after. What I want is discussion about issued raised, not criticism of my writing style or structure. If this were an article for an academic journal or part of a Masters submission then I’d spend more time and effort on the structure, but blogging should be about the substance. Some of the critics who populate Twitter with their bile should consider what negative feedback can do, especially if they’re employed in education.

One of the key pieces of advice that we offer to young people using social media is to not give up too much personal information. Particularly young children are told to not use their real names, something that is generally not considered to be applicable by the time they reach their teenage years. Ask FM, an awful but popular social network, allows users to post anonymous comments about each other, leading to some pretty horrific and hurtful comments. I can understand that educators are sensitive about sharing personal details, including names, on social media sites, and as a result many teachers on Twitter use a pseudonym. The problem with anonymity and social media, as shown by sites like Ask FM, is that people get braver when their identity is concealed, and there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity. Some of the personal attacks I have read on Twitter between fellow educators in recent weeks has been really disappointing and masks the vastly positive and warm communications that have been more prevalent during my Twitter time. We tend to call such people trolls but maybe we need to start identifying them as misogynists, homophobes, racists or whatever the sad contributing fact is that lies behind their insecurity and malicious intent.

So will I ditch Twitter with my Malboro Lights or continue to embrace it like my Samsung Galaxy? Despite my misgivings which have been somewhat over-amplified above, the positivity which surrounds most of the activity I have either witnessed or participated in on Twitter over the last few months far outweighs the negativity. It’s great to know how many wonderful educators are out there at a time when our profession is under attack from many areas. We need to defend our position as teachers and together we are most definitely stronger. It can be a great use of time as long as it doesn’t become obsessive, groups are generally more open than closed with people willing to engage with newcomers and the critics and abusers are more of a nuisance than a substantial detraction. Twitter is not great CPD but it can act as a wonderful stimulus for exploration and innovation. I have and will continue to warmly recommend it to colleagues with a few caveats and words of caution. Let’s all try and make it a little bit better.

Religion for Secular Schools: Part 2

Alain de Botton in Religion for Atheists talks about how secular society often assumes it is best to leave people to live how they chose without being pestered, whereas religions give very clear instruction on how we should behave and encourages virtues through the veneration of saints, gods and societal role models. In the Catholic Church, for example, numerous saints are revered and followed throughout the year to celebrate and be inspired by their devotion and sacrifice. This is something that de Botton feels secular society can easily replicate in order to promote virtues such as kindness that we may feel are crucial in any thriving community.

Secular society is very good at promoting certain messages

Schools have a duty to offer young people moral instruction. For faith schools this is largely a case of following the lives of saints, prophets, gods etc who teach the virtues of love, honesty, kindness, generosity, temperance as well as the spiritual elements so central to religious tenets. Secular schools also need to promote these virtues but can perhaps afford to be a little more selective and objective in their veneration of other people. Religions as well as the media often fall into the trap of portraying people as sinners or saints and behaviour as good or evil or right or wrong. This accentuates a rather simplistic attitude towards people which somewhat ignores the issue of causation and interpretation. Schools can celebrate and promote amazing achievements and feats but can also challenge simplistic profiles and assumptions.

The Catholic Church uses the lives of saints to promote moral behaviour

Last year at The John Warner School we asked students to identify who their role models were. The list included pop stars, Hollywood actors, footballers and reality TV ‘stars’ – the usual array of what might be dismissed as over-paid, over-hyped role models who only promote greed and the desperate search for fame. Our view was not to tell the students that they should not be inspired by One Direction or Lady Gaga but to find the most positive aspects of their lives to promote. Did you know, for example, that Kim Kardashian promotes awareness of the Armenian Genocide of 1915?

On a recent trip to New York my attention was caught by small billboards on the side of public telephone stands which promoted ‘values’. The billboards celebrate the achievements of Americans, both the famous and the not-famous linking to values such as fitness, encouragement, passion, drive, with the instruction to ‘pass it on’. Schools could easily replicate this by mixing achievements of famous people and students/staff/members of the community to promote values.

US billboards promote moral values

Religion is well-placed to inspire the spiritual message of awe and wonder. The existence of gods, miracles, the afterlife and other un-worldly concepts generates inexhaustible levels of mysticism and majesty. But human history is littered with great achievements and inspiring individuals and the story of the earth and universe gives us all the opportunity to inspire a sense of perspective. Do schools give enough opportunity for those ‘star-gazing’ moments which can offer us the best kind of reality-check? Churches adorn their walls and windows with images of saints and stories from the scriptures, people are encouraged to forget their personal woes for a few moments and to consider the plight of others and the grander forces at play. This instils a reverence for the wonder of the world and an appreciation of our place in the bigger picture. We have science and maths classrooms named after great scientists and mathematicians and inspiring passages from history and literature are hung from corridor walls. However, I still feel there are more opportunities to allow students to pause and consider, creating spaces for contemplation and inspiring a sense of majesty.

Zen garden at William Farr School in Welton - space for contemplation

Schools should not shy away from the opportunity we have to instil a sense of morality in our students as well as servicing their spiritual needs. If young people grow up in a fully secular society that is bereft of all moral guidance and spiritual experience then we are all likely to be worse off for it.

Religion for Secular Schools: Part 1

Let me start this off by making it clear what this post is NOT about. Religious education is compulsory (and has been since 1944) through locally agreed syllabi until the age of 16 and all schools are still accountable for collective acts of worship; that religious education may have been marginalised in recent years in most state schools, coinciding with the increased secularisation of society, is not a topic I intent to engage with here. Nor is this post either an attack or a defence of religious education in state schools or faith schools in general; I do not seek to impart any of my own views on these issues. In fact, this is not really about religion at all, not in the sense of religions being faith systems based on spirituality and the concepts of deities and the supernatural.

This post is unashamedly influenced by Alain de Botton’s recent book, Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion (2012), which seeks to use the most positive aspects of religious practice that have developed over hundreds of years to improve the lives of individuals and communities in our increasingly secular world. De Botton raises interesting and challenging issues for secular society which are, in many instances, directly applicable to schools which do not have an overtly religious connection. While de Botton rejects the supernatural claims of religion he suggests that we are all seeking meaning in our lives and that religions have some good ideas about how we should live and behave which secular society would do well to adopt. The book gives prompts for action which, I think, can largely be translated into the school environment.

Last year we have a visit from a delegation of teachers and educators from Nigeria. I met with them to discuss pastoral care at our school and left them aghast when explaining the context of the school told them the proportion of students who were declared as having ‘no religion’. They immediately seized on the wider implications of this suggesting that without religion we were likely to lose the moral fabric of our community and that we were clearly on the brink of decadence. While I was a long way from agreeing with them it did start me thinking what gaps are left in a community when the social aspects of religion are removed. While many might be comfortable with people choosing not to follow a god or ancient scriptures, what is sometimes forgotten is that with religion came more than just meaning to life, and in this country, whether we believe in the tenets of Christianity or not, the church has had, and continues to have, a huge influence on our art, culture, relationships, work and behaviour. Our secular society is perhaps rather quick to reject religion per se, rather than acknowledging the impact it has had on how we live, love and communicate. To an extent I agreed with my Nigerian guests, not because I thought that young people need God or Jesus in their lives, but because they do need guidance, structure and instruction. De Botton argues that we all need these elements in our lives and that libertarian ideology has wrongly assumed that any attempts to influence our views and behaviours should be avoided – if this is right for society in general, and I believe there is great merit in this view, then it is surely even more relevant for those of us who deal with young people who are most in need of guidance and structure.

Community

The first theme that de Botton tackles is that of ‘community’. He asks us to consider the physical environment of churches and other places of worship. They have been specifically designed to welcome large numbers of people and are often lavish and inspiring in their architecture and decoration. Some may find them cold and dark, but even the starkest of chapels can seem like a palace compared to most secular community centres. Religious buildings are also one of the few places in modern society where it is acceptable to greet a stranger, where people are encouraged to mix regardless of background and where those congregated are encouraged to treat each other as equals. De Botton describes how the Catholic Mass guides people on how to treat others through carefully choreographed activities. He points to the Jewish Passover meal where food brings people together from different generations in an organised and structured process which encourages communication and sharing. The annual Jewish Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) where believers are encouraged to reflect on their actions over the previous year and to seek forgiveness from those whom they may have wronged is seen by de Botton as a practice that could be adopted by secular society. Finally, de Botton points to religious celebrations that encourage normal customs and behaviours to be thrown out of the window, such as the Medieval Feast of Fools, where people were encouraged to behave in ways which brought out the more destructive and chaotic side of nature.

How can secular schools adopt theses religious practices which encourage a sense of community? Schools are perfectly placed to design community experiences because we have a captive audience for a significant proportion of the time. We may not be able to influence the architectural shell of our buildings but we can affect the warmth, appeal and usage of both our internal and external spaces. School halls can learn from religious buildings in the sense of them being welcoming and inspiring, school canteens can learn from religious feasts by encouraging members of the school community to sit, eat and talk together – do staff sit with students, do members of the community, such as the elderly come in to share a meal with students? Schools can create a sense of communal fun on collapsed timetable days, but these need to be carefully choreographed, more than just asking students to come in wearing non-uniform. Should we embrace the spirit of the Medieval Festival of Fools and turn the school world on its head every now and then? Do we allow enough time for reflection and atonement, not just in relation to academic learning, but personal growth and mastery?

Young people are not all fortunate enough to attend schools with majestic, historic buildings with domed assembly halls and wooden-clad dining rooms. Faith schools can fall back on the practices of their religion that create the structures for communal experiences and guidance. But we can all improve the physical environment that our staff and students inhabit and we all have an obligation to provide this structure and guidance for our community so they may learn the importance of living and sharing with others. We may give a nod to Community Cohesion and Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural Aspects of Learning but maybe we need to start from a fresh angle and adopt some of the approaches that have worked so effectively in religious institutions for hundreds of years.

Today I'm gonna teach you like it's 1999: Part 2

The problem is schools were not designed with learning in mind. As the likes of Sir Ken Robinson have so eloquently explained the school system is a product of the industrial period and is built on the industrial concepts of mass production, efficient use of resources and management of time. I am neither a technophobe nor am I a purveyor of the dystopian views which some extol but I am painfully conscious of the limitations that using technology for its own sake can bring to a learning environment. I would love to redesign my school on the Google working model, where students would be free to access learning in flexible ways from flexible spaces – where innovation and creativity were rewarded more than punctuality and appearance. But the tenacious factory approach to schools is a result of the practical need to educate hundreds of young people every weekday between the hours of 9 and 3.30 in buildings which are mostly outdated and rooms that can barely hold 33 people, let alone allow flexible usage.

The reality of the sometimes uneasy relationship between technology and education is that the two are not always mutually beneficial. As I ranted about in Part 1, I think the use of technology is sometimes something that reduces the quality of teaching and learning. The ideas which I put forward as a potential rebalancing are by no means new and when I say teach like it’s 1999 I don’t mean it in a backward looking, modern life is rubbish kind of way. My proposal is that teachers actually need to do two things: 1. Embrace technologies and social media and use them to reinvent home learning 2. Consider how, or indeed if, they are needed in class at all (i.e. teach like it’s 1999).

Home learning largely consists of preparation (or frontloading as they say in the USA), consolidation (usually some kind of assessment) or applying the skill or knowledge in a different context. All of these lend themselves to the exploitation of social media and technologies. The Flipped Classroom concept essentially focuses on preparing students for deeper and more creative learning experiences in class by asking them to engage with video content before the lesson. Done well (teacher generates their own content with resources for interaction) this method frees up the lesson time for more creative and collaborative development or teacher-led explanation or demonstration. Increasingly students are able to access online content on phones and other mobile devices so why not allow them to engage with the content anytime, anywhere? 

Consolidating learning also lends itself to social media. Asking students to write blogs, a wonderful way of reflecting or encouraging them to collaborate on document creation using Google Docs or SkyDrive are much more engaging and relevant activities than ‘complete this worksheet’.

Why not give consideration to a series of lessons which might exploit this idea of engaging students in learning outside of the classroom? A four lesson series of lessons could have the following:

• Frontloaded home learning using a 10 minute video and associated question sheet to introduce a new topic/concept
• Lesson 1
• Use of social media channels to respond to any needs for clarification/further exploration of ideas
• Lesson 2
• Consolidation home learning task such as a blog entry or collaborative document
• Lesson 3
• Use of social media channels for further discussions
• Lesson 4
• Frontloaded home learning task for next topic/concept

So what happens in the lessons if the content is delivered outside of class? Deeper learning, that’s what. Learning is a complex concept, but it is generally unanimously felt that being the passive recipient of someone else’s knowledge is not the most effective form of learning. So what is the most frequently used ICT tool in classrooms? PowerPoint: A presentation tool with its bullet points, crappy clip art and dreadful sound effects which has consumed teachers’ planning time for over a decade. Gradgrind would have loved it! But haven’t many moved on from this rather fin de siècle approach? BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the proliferation of iPads, Chrome Books and Smartphones surely means that students and teachers can now be constantly connected, exploiting the opportunities of new technology in the 21^st century classroom. The truth is there are some really innovative and experimental teachers out there who are testing the boundaries of pedagogy. There are forward-thinking and well-funded schools who are equipping their classrooms with the latest gadgetry to entice their learners and motivate their staff. But most people are still using PowerPoint.

Maybe we just get caught up in what we think the classroom of the present/future should be like and assume that it is a replica of Google HQ. We assume that it should be filled with amazing technology. But for what purpose? Technology in itself is not the answer for education, in the same way that it is not to blame for all of society’s ills. The reality of most classrooms will continue to be centred on the human relationships that exist between one teacher and 30 students. Activities, therefore, during that period of time need to be tailored towards optimising the engagement and opportunities for deep learning. New technologies can be best exploited, for most of us, outside of the classroom. Let’s remember why we got into this game in the first place. Let’s remember how we used to engage them in 1999.

Today I'm gonna teach you like it's 1999: Part 1

I’m a huge advocate of exploiting new technology in education and have spent the last couple of years promoting the informed use of social media in schools. However, I’m a much bigger advocate of meaningful learning experiences and opportunities for creativity and engagement. A tension often exists between the prevalence of modern technology and remembering what effective teaching and learning is. At his recent BETT speech, Professor Brian Cox suggested replacing interactive whiteboards in school with blackboards, and I would agree that using technology for the sake of it can undermine more traditional strategies that work. Is it time that we had a fresh look at the role of technology in education rather than pursuing the rather lazy assumption that all technology is good for learning?

I started my NQT year in 1999. It very quickly dawned on me that the impact of my lessons had a positive correlation with the amount of time and thought I put into planning and assessment. Teaching through the use of ICT had been touched on in my PGCE year but was very much seen as a sideshow for the main event and engagement in lessons relied heavily on the imagination and creativity of my planning which often aimed to give my students the opportunity to be imaginative and creative in class. Images and quotes were displayed on the Overhead Projector, worksheets were often homemade and bespoke for individual classes and students. My classes were teacher-led without being didactic and students were given opportunities to engage in content using various activities and assessment tools. In 2000 my classroom became the first in the school to have the blackboard replaced with an interactive whiteboard. People came to observe me and my magic board and I was sent out to other schools to help train staff on how to make the best use of this new technology. I desperately searched in vain for software which would exploit the capabilities of the whiteboard so that it didn’t just become a glorified OHP but eventually I, like the majority of the profession since, settled on the tool which seemed most relevant: Microsoft PowerPoint.

PowerPoint made us lazy. Like all these things, it’s not the fault of the software, which can create amazingly engaging presentations, but the way it has been used in our profession. I used to start planning lessons with a key question in mind which would lead to some creative thinking about how best to engage my students in the topic followed by creative resource-making. Now I was starting my planning with this:

PowerPoint was not designed with teaching and learning in mind. It is a presentation tool. Effective lessons are not presentations. Presentations are used, largely in the world of business, to inform or persuade. The presenter usually has some information (e.g. sales figures) or ideas (e.g. marketing strategy) which the audience, either through genuine interest or because it is their job, are willing to listen to. Teachers may well have information and ideas that they would love their audience to absorb in this way, but this is not the reality of children or schools. Presentation/lectures clearly have a place in higher education, are just about possible at times at post-16 level but are definitely a no-go area for a year 10 class on a wet Thursday afternoon.

So why have we persisted with PowerPoint presentations for the last decade? I blame the assumption that new technology is always a good thing in education. We have been encouraged to ask questions of the use of ICT in lessons – if the technology is available, why isn’t it being used? Every staff INSET, parent information meeting, training course and student-led presentation is delivered on PowerPoint (or Keynote, Prezi etc), so, we concluded, should every lesson. This has made us lazy. Consider the amount of time that has been spent on summarising content into bullet-points, searching for appropriate images and adding animation effects and how this time could have invested in considering creative learning opportunities. PowerPoint appeals to our lazy gene – we even steal presentations off other teachers so we don’t have to expend effort on creating our own (some call this sharing best practice).

The presentation is not the presentation. Starting with PowerPoint just encourages us to deliver content. That’s bad enough on its own, but delivering it in a dull and inspiring manner is as bad as my old Deputy Headteacher dictating from the Bible in RS lessons.

PowerPoint is a great example of how technology can kill creativity. It is not alone. The all-too familiar practical obstacles of using computers in class must be bane of ICT teachers’ lives -  ‘I’ve forgotten my password’, ‘I’m still waiting for it to log-in’, ‘let me just finish this level’. Yet we all still clamour to book that period in the ICT room so we can deliver a tired PowerPoint presentation to our class before letting them free to produce their own tired PowerPoint presentation so they too can deliver content to a disinterested audience. Where’s the learning?

This was less of an issue in 1999. Most classrooms didn’t have computers and ICT suites were used to teach ICT competencies. Good teachers used planning time to create engaging activities. Good teachers still do this, but there is a danger that PowerPoint and the availability of online resource sharing sites has made teachers spend more time on the presentation than the way in which their students might learn the skills or knowledge.

In my next post I’ll propose how we might consider ways of embracing technology and social media outside of the classroom while at the same time resisting the shackles that these things can bring to the creativity and imagination of what actually happens in our lessons.