Classroom teaching – Emma Williams: Latin tutor

Latin language GCSE

Tomorrow the several thousand students studying Latin across the UK will sit their language examination. The Boards clearly collaborate when it comes to exam timetabling, so both OCR and Eduqas/WJEC have their Latin language examinations on the timetable tomorrow, both of them setting a paper that lasts and hour and a half.

Having worked with both Boards for three years now and having worked proactively through the existing past papers for both Boards in somewhat obsessive detail, I consider myself something of an expert on the quirks of each. Broadly, the Boards take a markedly different approach to examination, although they have a couple of interesting quirks in common. For example, both Boards seem somewhat obsessed with candidates noticing whether or not an adjective is in the superlative, including when that superlative is irregular. Personally, I don’t really understand why it is so crucially important that candidates translate plurimi as “very many” rather than just “many”, but for whatever reason, both Boards are very keen on it. Neither Board lists the irregular comparatives and superlatives as separate vocabulary, which given their obsession with their accurate translation seems a drastic oversight to me.

The language exam for OCR has a much longer history than Eduqas, which is the relatively new kid on the block for Latin. Those who taught the subject prior to the examination reforms in 2018 will understand why the OCR paper is divided into two sections, which bear no relation to each other: Section A represents what used to be Paper 1 and Section B what used to be Paper 2: the Board have simply merged what used to be two language papers into one, which I remember thinking at the time was quite extraordinarily lazy and has made for the current exam seeming bizarrely disjointed. Section A, worth 30 marks, consists of a 16-mark comprehension, a 4-mark derivatives question and then a choice between some grammar questions based on the comprehension passage or three English to Latin sentences. I always advise candidates to attempt the grammar questions as these are relatively straightforward (although considerably harder than the ones on the Eduqas paper). The grammar questions are quite ridiculously predictable and it is easy to drill even the weakest candidates to get full marks or close to full marks on this section. Section B of the OCR paper starts with a completely new story and contains a longer comprehension followed by a translation, which is worth 50% of the candidates’ overall marks. Section B is considerably harder than Section A and candidates do need to be aware that 50% of their overall mark is represented by that final translation passage.

Eduqas takes a completely different approach, one which followed the spirit of traditional “momentum” tests of old: the same storyline is maintained throughout most of the paper (which seems much more sensible), and what is labelled “Section A” is 90% of the paper: it consists of a short passage for comprehension, two short passages for translation and then a longer comprehension at the end; because the story is continuous, candidates benefit from completing the paper in order. Section B is worth only 10% and consists of a choice between some English into Latin sentences or some quite remarkably simple grammar questions, based on a very short and very simple passage of Latin, which is not even close to the complexity of the rest of the paper. As for OCR, the grammar questions are repetitive and predictable, thus it is easy once again to drill candidates to gain full marks on this section.

One notable quirk of Eduqas, and it is one I dislike, is that they seem particularly keen on candidates being able to follow the story. The reason I dislike this is I feel it advantages students who come from a background of traditional schooling, who may know the story involved. Candidates are often asked to infer things that are not actually contained in the passage and I find this unfair as those who have spent time in the prep school system or know the ancient stories from general interest may well find themselves better off. Another thing I dislike about the way that Eduqas examines candidates is that it uses a huge number of multiple choice questions, many of which seem specifically designed to trick candidates. They will, for example, encourage candidates to select the wrong meaning of words that are easy to mix up. That said, their approach to derivatives is much more benevolent: OCR seem ludicrously wedded to the idea of forcing candidates to define the meaning of the derivative they select, which I simply do not understand. I generally dislike questions about derivatives as again I feel they disadvantage candidates from certain backgrounds; they certainly disadvantage those for whom English is their second language, especially if that language is not European.

I am reaching the point where I know the vocabulary lists pretty well for both Boards, and there is roughly a 90% crossover. If anything, Eduqas has more words that are easy to mix up due to its inclusion of adiuvo (often confused with audio) and pareo (often confused with paro). That said, OCR included the word liber (book) as well as liberi (children), whereas Eduqas only has the latter. Both Boards have both iacio and iaceo, a nightmare to distinguish, and they also both have puto as well as peto, neco as well as nescio. All of these are regular traps that candidates fall into. When it comes to irregular verbs, OCR has more of these and includes the particularly awkward verb malo, which in my experience is massively undertaught in schools, which all focus on volo and nolo (as per the Cambridge Latin Course) and do not appear to teach malo discretely at all. Eduqas do not included it on their list.

As candidates make their final preparations for the exam one can only hope, as ever, that we have prepared them for the relevant pitfalls to the best of our ability. Michael Gove once said that he wanted to eliminate teachers’ ability to teach to the test but I’m afraid he has failed dismally in that department. While results continue to matter, teachers will continue to prepare candidates for the specific exam that they are facing. Not to do so would be sheer negligence.

I wrote it on my hand

Just occasionally, a student will say something so extraordinary that I am stopped in my tracks. This week, it was when a child I have been working with in the run-up to her GCSE examinations told me that she had to resort to writing on her hand during a lesson.

I was hesitant to write this piece, for it means going over ground I have covered before; but in the spirit in which this blog was started, I remain committed to writing about what is on my mind at the time, and this week I am haunted by the fact that a student was unable to write down a question during her lesson.

More and more schools in the private sector have moved to a digital model, in which lessons are conducted using tablets or – most commonly – Chromebooks. I am deeply suspicious that this is a money-saving exercise, since schools can access the equipment at a considerable discount when buying in bulk, and anyone who has seen the average photocopying budget for a busy department will come to realise that the potential saving is considerable, once the initial investment is made. Printing booklets is expensive, and this fact seems to be outweighing the fact that they are effective learning tools.

The young people I work with are – as one might expect – reasonably tech savvy, but they are universally scathing about their school’s digital approach. Without exception, they report that the technology is clumsy, unreliable and not fit for purpose. They will even volunteer the fact that it is distracting and hampers learning by offering up temptations that would otherwise not be present. Students report a quite extraordinary litany of what they get up to on their laptops when they are meant to be on task during a lesson: at best, they may be doing homework for another subject; at worst, they will be playing games or accessing chat applications. All of them agree that they cannot discern what tangible positives the technology brings to their learning. Moreover, as I discussed at greater length back in January, they lack the skills and the maturity to manage their learning through digital platforms. Organising, managing and accessing large files and using screen-splitting to make this viable is genuinely beyond a significant number of students: frankly, it’s beyond a lot of adults.

So far, so predictable. The student I spoke to this week has been one of the many who have expressed frustration with her school’s digital approach and has found it difficult to access her notes and prior learning. There are constructions she has no recollection of ever been taught, which is not uncommon, but what is concerning is the fact that she cannot find a way to revisit her own notes on the topic. Had the school been using a well-organised printed booklet, this would have been effortless. Once again, the technology is working against her, which pretty much undermines everything that technology is meant to stand for; technology should be a facilitator and an enabler, not a barrier to learning.

I really struggle to comprehend why so many schools have switched to a digital model, despite the overwhelming evidence that handwriting is better for cognition. Handwriting engages a broader network of brain regions and motor skills compared to typing, potentially leading to better memory formation and learning. Typing is faster and more efficient when it comes to output, but it involves less active cognitive engagement and thus fewer opportunities for memory consolidation. Typing is fantastic for fast communication – it is not so for learning. Writing by hand forces the brain to engage in a more active, sensory-motor experience; the process activates the regions in the brain responsible for motor control, visual processing, and sensory input – a much broader range than is required for typing. Studies have shown that handwriting leads to more elaborate and widespread brain connectivity patterns than typing, suggesting that the act of writing by hand is thus more effective for encoding new information and forming memories. This is why, when I am learning something off by heart, I don’t do it (exclusively) on the computer.

But aside from all of this, let’s just think of the practicalities. I am a huge fan of technology and I do pretty much everything through it. I use a digital calendar, as I find it more effective and efficient than a traditional one. All my tutoring is online, so all the resources I use with students are presentable on screen. However, when I send them resources, these are almost always designed to be printed out and held in their hands. In addition, and here’s what is most relevant to my post today, I have a lined pad beside my laptop for notes. When a student asks me to send them something after the session, I jot that down on the notepad. When a student warns me that they will be able to make the next session, I jot that down on the notepad. It is simply more efficient and quicker to do this than to open a file and make a note in a corner of my digital resources. The notepad sits beside me at all times and I cross off each note as I implement it. The page beside me as I type has the following written down and crossed through (names have been changed):

Billy – noun table

Olivia – YouTube vid. on 10-markers

Niall – 2021 paper + Rome qus

This is exactly the kind of thing that a notepad is needed for – quick notes to self that will be implemented immediately and ticked off. There is no need for a permanent record, just a requirement for an immediate visual reminder to action something at the end of my run of sessions. None of this is rocket science, or so I thought.

Yesterday, when my student reported that she had some questions arising from her first lesson back in school, she admitted that she was struggling to remember them because she had not been able to write them down. Not only has her school moved so entirely over to Chromebooks that students appear not to have any kind of papers, notebooks or diaries to hand, but get this: her teacher seems aware of the fact that the Chromebooks are causing distraction during the lesson, so has banned students from accessing them during the lesson. This would be fine if the students were given an alternative route to note-taking, but that’s presumably against whole-school policy, so instead the students are left with nothing to write on. “So, I wrote it on my hand,” she said, “but then I couldn’t make it out and it got washed off later in the day.”

So, there we have it. What a stunning victory for technology over common sense. You have a child left unable to access her notes, unable to write down a question for their teacher or tutor (the fact that she wanted to save a question for one-to-one time rather than interrupting the flow of the lesson should surely be applauded) and a piece of technology which undermines learning to such an extent that the teacher is forced to discontinue its use in lessons without a suitable replacement. Three cheers for our ability to make the world just a little bit more bonkers than it needs to be.

Paralysed by Empathy

One of the overriding memories I have of INSET training in schools is how disempowered it made me feel. Much time was spent making us deeply aware of the unpromising and unsupportive backgrounds that some of our students hailed from. I remember being profoundly affected by being told that – for some children – their form tutor may be the first adult who has spoken to them that morning: their parent(s) may be out, or may not have surfaced from their bed. I never forgot that, but I also felt totally ill-equipped in how I should therefore handle such an interaction. Besides from bearing the depressing truth in mind, what was the best way for me to do my job? I was never entirely sure.

Safeguarding training is a cornerstone of educational practice. It is essential that all adults working with children are alert to the kinds of circumstances in which vulnerable young people may find themselves. Training should pull no punches about the nature, likelihood and shocking frequency of abuse and neglect. It is also crucial, however, that such training is empowering: that it makes the adults involved feel like they understand what they can and cannot do, and equips them with the skills and knowledge to take action when warranted. Otherwise, the training is nothing more than useless hand-wringing and serves no purpose for those at risk, who are the ones that matter. When it came to intervention or raising the alarm, I felt very well-prepared: I knew what the right channels were, I knew how to follow up and I felt able to act. What I did not feel so equipped to deal with was the daily reality of interacting with so many young people, whose background worked against them, whose circumstances were less than ideal. How was I supposed to handle them in the classroom? What strategies were most appropriate to provide the right environment for them? What could I actually do?

All teachers are painfully aware that a significant number of their students face undeniable challenges in their personal lives. These challenges are ongoing and cannot be magically resolved – certainly not by their classroom teachers. It is in the handling of such troubled and often challenging students that so many teachers find themselves bereft of the tools that they need to do their job. The training they are given – in my experience – does nothing to mitigate against this, indeed, in many cases, it makes the situation worse. If all training consists of is a relentless diatribe, detailing the awful circumstances in which some of our students are living, teachers can find themselves quite literally paralysed by empathy.

Empathy is one of the cornerstones of emotional intelligence. The ability to comprehend the feelings and experiences of others helps us to envisage what it’s like to walk in their shoes and pretty much defines humanity: theory of mind – the cognitive ability to understand that others have thoughts, feelings, and intentions that are different from our own – is one of the things that defines us as a species. Empathy allows us to understand and share the feelings of others, and it forms the bedrock of human interaction. But in the relationship between a teacher and student, unmitigated empathy can completely derail us. When adults find themselves overwhelmed by the thought of a child’s situation at home, it can hinder their ability to establish necessary boundaries and provide the education that such students desperately need and deserve.

When empathy becomes overwhelming, adults may find themselves hesitant to enforce rules, set limits, or assert appropriate authority. This phenomenon, when an adult is paralysed by empathy, arises from a deep and genuine concern about causing emotional distress or perceived harm to the child. While well-intentioned, such an over-empathetic approach deprives children of the boundaries they need. Authority does not have to imply dominance or control: authority is not authoritarianism, but rather the caring, conscious exercise of our responsibility to nurture and protect those in our care. Establishing clear boundaries in schools helps children to understand expectations, learn self-discipline, and develop resilience when managing their challenges. Children thrive in environments where there is a balance between empathy and appropriate boundaries, and those boundaries are even more important when they are lacking at home. In our bid to empathise with the most vulnerable students in our care, we unwittingly compound their neglect.

Empathy is crucial in understanding children’s emotions. It enables adults to respond sensitively and to offer support during times of distress. But our role as educators is to equip children with the skills and confidence to navigate the world autonomously, within safe parameters. Such empowerment begins with adults who confidently assert their authority when necessary, guiding children towards responsible decision-making, and fostering resilience in the face of challenges. Boundaries provide a framework, within which children can explore their world safely and confidently. They offer a sense of security and predictability, essential for emotional stability and growth. When adults prioritise empathy to the extent that boundaries become blurred or non-existent, children may struggle with understanding limits, managing impulses, or respecting others’ needs. The results of such a failure are there for everyone to see.

Why is translation so difficult?

I recall being puzzled a few years ago, when the languages department I was attached to invited me to present to them on how I go about teaching the skill of translation. I had assumed that the process of translation was almost synonymous with language work, and would be embedded into the teaching of all languages. It was news to me that a change in syllabus meant that translation from the target language into English was a new and hitherto under-explored field for modern linguists, and this belies my background as someone who has specialised in Latin.

When it comes to ancient languages, translation is what we do. Without delving into the thorny issue of justifying the value of studying Latin per se (!), it is a simple truth that the ultimate goal of this kind of study remains to be able to read and decipher a text that was written down in Latin and to translate it into English. Despite this obvious truth, a huge number of children who study the subject struggle with the process of translation, and it is worth reflecting upon why that might be.

Broadly speaking, the clients who get in touch with me asking for help for their child fall into two camps, and those camps tend to be based on age-group. Most of the people who want help for a younger child (say in Years 7-8) will say that their child is “okay with translating” but “struggles with the grammar”. This is always a massive red flag for impending disaster, for it means that their child’s translations are based entirely on instinct and guesswork; the child may have appeared to manage okay so far, but as things get harder they will fall apart and the child will soon find that they can comprehend very little of what’s in front of them. It is a drastic misconception, in my opinion, that “grammar” is something separate from “translation”. This really gets to the heart of Latin as a subject and belies why so many children need help with it. Grammar is not an optional luxury for those most deeply versed in the language: it is the beating heart of how the language works.

Parents of older children (broadly speaking in Years 9-11) tend to be the ones who are already experiencing the fall-out of translation without the systematic application of grammar rules. Students by this time find that their previously-successful methodologies of translating on instinct have all but collapsed. Parents of students who have reached this stage will usually tell me that their child struggles with absolutely everything and is on the verge of giving up. A few will say that their child is “okay with the grammar” (which means they have rote-learned their endings) but cannot make it work in the context of a translation. This less common scenario is what tends to happen with a highly-motivated student, generally successful in their studies, who has been told to “learn their endings” and has dutifully done so, but has not had the opportunity to sit down with somebody in one-to-one sessions and have the process of translation – actually making use of those endings – modelled and unpicked for them. This is not to say that their classroom teacher has not used the method of modelling, nor that they have not tried to dedicate some one-to-one attention to such a child. But the reality remains that such processes are remarkably difficult to embed and often require repeated, intensive one-to-one work to make a tangible difference to outcomes. This is especially true for a child that has developed the habit of translating on instinct and has not been drilled from the beginning to analyse Latin sentences rigorously. I’m afraid to say that the most popular text books used in secondary schools (the Cambridge Latin Course and Suburani) tend to encourage and compound such an approach. These courses are nicknamed “reading courses” and aim to encourage fluid and instinctive reading from the outset, eschewing the process of analysis. My personal experience with such an approach is that it is disastrous for a child’s long-term grasp of the subject and results in an inability to translate when things get even remotely complicated. Lots of people disagree with me on this, and if you’d like to hear me interview one or two of them, then listen to my podcast; in Season 2 Episode 1, I interview Caroline Bristow (Director of the Cambridge Schools Classics Project) and in Episode 6 I talk to David Carter, who is an advocate for a methodology called comprehensible input. If you’d like to hear me interview someone who shares my views, listen to Season 2 Episode 2 with Ed Clarke.

Much of my time in one-to-one sessions is spent asking students to justify their translation. When they tell me that rex deorum means “the king of the gods” … was that an easy guess based on the fact that they know the vocabulary? Or can they identify the fact that deorum is genitive plural, which is why it translates as “of the gods”? If they can’t unpick their reasoning behind very simple sentences, then in my experience they will never be able to translate more complex ones. My focus is therefore to present students with a variety of sentences, using vocabulary that is familiar to them, then challenge them to identify and articulate the morphology and syntax which justifies and explains their translation.

It is also important from the very beginning to present students with sentences which cannot be translated successfully without some kind of analysis. Even at the most rudimentary level, this is easy to do. While reading courses such as Suburani tend to encourage students to follow their natural instinct to read from left to right by using pronouns at the start of a sentences like English does, I prefer to present students with sentences that lack a noun or a pronoun as the subject, so they are forced to look at the verb ending in order to find out who is doing the action. During lockdown, I basically re-wrote the Cambridge Latin Course for my students and one of the main things I did was to remove all those subject pronouns. This change made an immediate and tangible difference to outcomes with the beginners in my classroom. From very early on, students were forced to cope with sentences such as ad tabernas festinas (you are hurrying to the shops) when previously they had been shown tu ad tabernas festinas, which means exactly the same thing but provides them with the subject (you) as vocabulary at the front of the sentence and hence removes the need to look at the verb ending; take away the subject pronoun, and the learner is forced to develop the correct habit of parsing the verb ending (festina-s, as opposed to festin-o or festina-t). Initially, of course, this slows the learner down, but the ultimate gain is the right kind of rigour, which will pay dividends in the long-term. While it will initially appear to take students longer to be able to translate basic sentences with fluidity and skill, their translations when they come will be based upon real understanding, not the false appearance of success. It is this false early success – in my opinion – that makes the reading courses so popular; students feel brilliantly successful in the early stages, but they are living in a house of cards.

By far the most common scenario presented to me as a tutor who specialises in supporting struggling students is a child who has enjoyed and appeared to thrive in Latin in Years 7-8, who then experienced an enormous crisis in Year 9 or at the start of their GCSE studies. These students feel cheated and let down, and understandably so. A lot of them come to me saying that they regret selecting the subject for GCSE and are convinced that they cannot do it. Happily, I am usually able to convince them that they can do it, but this involves unpicking the habits they have formed in the early years and retraining them from scratch. While reading courses such as Suburani and the CLC continue to dominate the market in secondary schools, I don’t see this situation changing in a hurry.

Photo by Gabriella Clare Marino on Unsplash

Let me count the ways

How do we let young people down in 2025? Let me count the ways. Beyond our inexplicable willingness to allow them unfettered 24-hour access to the dark world of the internet, beyond our discomfort with and unwillingness to take the responsibility that lies with adults, to be in charge and to be the grown-ups in the room, beyond this lurks yet another way in which we can let them down. We can teach them an inflated sense of their own importance; we can let them believe that the world revolves around them and let them imagine that, when they reach adulthood, their employer will bend to their every whim. How do we do that? Let me give you an example.

It is not often that I read a post on LinkedIn, as it’s never an enriching experience. But imagine my horror when I happen upon someone who claims to be a fellow educationalist openly celebrating the news that a child is missing their lessons for no good reason other than the fact that it is their birthday. “Let’s normalise taking your birthday off without any further explanation or drama required,” she exclaimed. “Life’s too short not to!” She also celebrated “the beauty of flexi/online schooling,” showing at least some awareness of the fact that the average UK school would take a pretty dim view of any student – or their parents – citing a birthday as a reason to take a day off.

To be clear, it was apparent from her post that this person was talking about the kind of tutoring that is there to replace traditional schooling, not supplement it. As someone who works with students who attend mainstream school, I have had several occasions on which parents have cancelled their evening appointment with me due to birthday celebrations, and that is just as it should be: the child has already done a day’s schooling and it seems more than reasonable to reserve their evening time for birthday celebrations with family and/or friends. But this tutor was celebrating the fact that their student was missing an entire day’s worth of schooling, and even seemed to be implying that – in an ideal world – schools would be willing to accommodate such a decision. The responses were mainly positive, with several people – all of them no doubt making money out of the increasing trend of parents taking their children out of the traditional education system – applauding the sentiment. “Brilliant! Joy, wellbeing and belonging first, then education will flow and be valued” asserted one, a remarkable claim which I would love to see the data on. “All my students take their birthdays off, and I encourage it,” said another. “Absolutely brilliant,” said a third: “I too encourage my students to take their birthdays off!”

There were one or two of us speaking up for sanity, so all is not lost. One or two people commented that allowing students to take random days off is disruptive to both the teacher and the learner. I commented that allowing students to take time off in this way is surely setting them up for future disappointment in life. There are not many people in this world who are so blessed that they can pick and choose whether or not they go into work on a particular day. If at least part of education’s purpose is to prepare students for working life, then what kind of precedent are we setting by normalising the expectation of a day off on their birthday, rather than explaining to them that school is still there – birthday or not – and reassuring them that celebrations will be had when it is finished for the day?

There are innumerable jobs which do not allow for days off at your preferred time, including some quite noble careers. Teaching, for example, is well known as a profession in which you do get lots of time away from the chalkface, but the price you pay for the significant chunks of flexible free time undeniably allowed to you is that the times when you are tied to the chalkface are 100% dictated by your employer. It is quite remarkably difficult for classroom teachers to negotiate any time away from their classroom, for blindingly obvious reasons. I remember a wealthy friend once invited myself and my husband to Glyndebourne, in an ill-fated attempt to convert me to opera. “You’d have to take the afternoon off,” he said, airily. I snorted with mirth, for this was just one example of how someone in his wealth-bracket tends to presume that the world works for everybody else. It was almost worth me booking an appointment with the Headteacher, just to see the look on her face when I requested the afternoon off “to attend the opera.” Many of our young people will end up in jobs like mine, when time off at one’s own behest is simply not on the cards. Granted, many of them won’t. The point is: all jobs include “have-tos” (true even for my wealthy barrister friend), and young people need to learn this simple fact. Otherwise, we are letting them down.

Beyond the fact that school attendance teaches children about the “have-tos” in life, allowing time off at a child’s behest devalues education itself. Taking students out of school for random events should not be done lightly, for in doing so we are inevitably sending a message to a child that their schooling is not important to us. This then echoes down the line when it comes to their day-to-day studies, their preparation for examinations, their overall efforts to achieve academically. Why should it matter to them, if we are constantly undermining the message that it matters to us by taking them out of school?

My third and final objection to the idea of allowing and encouraging students to take time out of school for their birthday is perhaps a little controversial, so brace yourselves. Here goes. Quite simply, I think it is too self-indulgent. I am so depressed at how society seems to be shifting more and more towards an entirely individualistic mindset, one which prioritises the wants and needs of the individual over and above the needs of the community as a whole. While I would never object to the idea that one should be mindful of one’s own health and wellbeing, indeed I write often about my efforts to centre my own, the expectation of one’s right to do so has become so unquestionable that we are beginning to forget what binds us together as a community. In our relentless pursuit of independence and self-efficacy, I fear we may end up with a world full of egocentrics.

In the grand scheme of humanity, nobody’s birthday is actually that important, because nobody is the centre of the universe. We need to keep our special dates in perspective. They matter to us and – if we are lucky enough – to those who care about us. They do not – nor should they – impact upon the rest of the world. If that seems a little too nihilistic for your liking, then here’s another way of looking at it: if it’s their birthday, wouldn’t it be better for a child to go into school and celebrate by sharing the love with their classmates? Over the years, I have had several colleagues who liked to make a fuss on their birthday, so they brought in cakes and shared them with all of us. It was an absolutely lovely thing to do and everybody enjoyed it. And everyone wished them a happy birthday! So, if we believe that birthdays are so special and important, then why don’t we teach our children that their birthday is a chance to bring some joy to their usual routines and responsibilities, not an opportunity to evade them?

Spurious pipelines

If you’re searching for a reason why so many of us have left the teaching profession in the last few years, then look no further than the ceaseless school-bashing that so many apparent professionals are willing to partake in.

I’d like to think that the situation is improving, but just this week we had a self-styled “training and strategy consultant” who claims to “help parents and professionals understand children with trauma” share the image below yet again and state as follows: “The power of this image is its simplicity. It makes us feel uncomfortable. And it should.” Yet another armchair philosopher, who has never taught in a UK school, willing to promote the lazy stereotype that schools are institutions of oppression. In response to the understandable pushback he received from some professional teachers, he commented “I am very happy for people to criticise this image and add to the discussion.” Ha! Yeah, right. People who promote this kind of facile commentary for clicks are not interested in discussion; they’re only interested in being patted on the back by the people who agree with them.

What’s most depressing is the number of people – many teachers included – that buy into this kind of nonsense. So many teaching professionals are so beleaguered by their circumstances, so ground down by the incessant white noise that tells us that the system is failing, they can’t even see when they’re being sold a self-defeating falsehood.

I have no intention of spending my time debunking the ludicrous premise here, that any school issuing basic level sanctions and – in extreme circumstances – exclusions, somehow sets a child on an inevitable path to crime. There have been plenty of well-informed challenges to this frankly mind-bogglingly stupid assumption, which fails to take into account the most obvious fact that correlation is not causation. How on earth can someone who claims to be an intelligent and empathetic professional fail to comprehend why it might indeed be the case that adults who commit crimes deemed worthy of imprisonment might have been children who found themselves in trouble at school? Can anyone honestly be that stupid? Are they so blind to the realities of human nature that they have to pretend that every teenager is a pure blank slate onto which The System somehow stamps an inescapably dark future? This is not to say that children who find themselves excluded from school are not troubled and should not be provided for. They are society’s responsibility and society’s problem. But so are the hundreds of other individuals in that school. Schools do not exclude lightly, indeed they go out of their way to avoid it. But if some recent, violent events have taught us anything, they surely have taught us the obvious fact that there are certain offences that warrant exclusion. Bringing a knife into school is just one of those offences.

I have written before about the fact that poor behaviour in schools was a significant part of what drove me out of the profession. In many ways, this is a simplistic way of looking at things. What truly drove me out was the presumption – in many schools and in much of society as a whole – that the poor behaviour was my responsibility and indeed my fault. Something I hear frequently from tutees are reports that their teacher “cannot control the class” and I never let it pass without challenge. “Why is it your teacher’s job to manage the way that you and your friends choose to behave?” I like to ask them. They tend to back-pedal vigorously, usually of course denying that they or their friends have anything to do with the poor behaviour being reported. But the truth is, this is what the kids genuinely think, this is what their parents think and this is what society thinks. Everyone believes that teachers should somehow, by dint of their vibrant personality and an indefatigable love for the traditional educational process, be able to manage and control the whims of the 30 individuals in front of them. If they can’t do that, it’s because they’re too uninspiring, too reticent, too reactive, not good enough at their job or they take their job too personally.

The truth is that the only way for schools to manage behaviour successfully is by setting their standards sky-high and expecting their staff, the students and their parents to be fully on board with the school’s ethos. That ethos must permeate every interaction and every conversation that takes place between every student and every member of staff. Such a culture is extremely hard work to create and there will be large numbers of people – professionals included – who will attempt to push back against it and defend a more individualised approach, in which each teacher is left to carve their own path. This individualised approach is how most schools are run and it doesn’t work. If you want to be sure of what behaviour is like in a school, find out how cover lessons go, most especially those supervised by a supply teacher. That’s the only way you’ll find out whether the school runs on a unified ethos or whether it runs on the force of personality and/or the years of brow-beaten experience chalked up by its staff. From the stories I hear from the classroom, we’ve got a long way to go.

Radical traditionalism

It is easy to forget, sometimes, how far we have come. In a social milieu that is changing so fast it makes your head spin, it can be tempting to hark back to simpler times, when teachers ruled the classroom and when students did as they were told. The trouble is, as a Professor of Greek once said to me, the good old days were never really that good. “In the good old days,” he mused, “with my background, I wouldn’t have been a Professor and a Head of Department. I’d have been ram-rodding the drains.”

One of the most frustrating things about politicians is they all seem to believe that they understand education. In fact, it’s not just politicians: it’s everyone. Everyone has been to school and so everyone can and does have a supposedly valid opinion on how schools should be run and how children should be taught. But as Katharine Birbalsingh observed this week, the “government team saying the Education Secretary doesn’t need lectures from successful school leaders because the Education Secretary went to school herself would be like the Health Secretary saying he doesn’t want to hear from doctors because he once went to hospital.”

Birbalsingh was frustrated by a recent (and extremely brief) audience that she and other extraordinary Headteachers had been given with the Education Secretary, who by all accounts was distinctly uninterested in finding out how a school with a socially disadvantaged intake such as Michaela’s can achieve results which rival those of Eton College. The Education Secretary was not in the least bit curious to explore how Michaela had reached such heights of attainment. I’d like to say that I find this extraordinary, unbelievable and shocking, but I don’t. Until people let go of their passionate political affiliations – and I find it highly unlikely that an elected Member of Parliament is capable of doing so – then education will continue to remain a bruised and punctured political football.

One of the most depressing things about modern times is how unwilling people seem to learn from the past. We have seen a plethora of radical experiments and we now have a wealth of evidence about which environments work best for the majority of students. With the opening up of academia and a terrific movement towards making the most useful discoveries in cognitive science accessible to the average classroom teacher, we also know a huge amount about how children learn and remember. Despite all of this, huge swathes of educationalists remain unshakably wedded to outmoded ideas. The infuriating thing is, they consider themselves to be the progressives, kicking against what they call “the traditional methods”. But surely, if you’re hanging on to so-called “progressive” ideas that were first mooted more than 50 years ago, then you’re anything but a radical. You’re a dyed-in-the-wool conservative.

I find it indescribably irksome that my stance on learning and education – which has changed radically over the years along with my own experience, with the reading I have done and with my willingness to change my mind – is labelled as “traditionalist”. If you want to know about “traditional” in its very worst sense then you could have sat through one of the Divinity lessons I was forced to attend at school. Oh yes. Divinity. Imagine that. The lessons were led by a Reverend and the man seemed determined to spread and perpetuate ignorance to the best of his deeply limited ability. He lived in a fantasy world, in which children were still drilled in their Bible studies at home, thoroughly steeped in an understanding of chapter and verse. Our so-called “lessons” consisted of him selecting a passage for one of us to read from the Bible, after which he would pontificate circuitously for the rest of the hour. The worst thing was, due to his unmitigated fantasy about our Bible knowledge, he offered no education as to the shape and structure of the Bible, he simply barked a reference followed by a name and waited for the girl to start reading. Any girl who found herself floundering to locate “Mark, chapter 15, verses 32-38” or whatever reference he had pronounced, was left to flounder. If she started reading from the wrong section he would simply shout “NOOOOOOO!” and wait for her to try again. On occasion, this happened multiple times until the girl managed to stumble upon the correct lines. I don’t think it even occurred to him that most children in the room wouldn’t even have understood what “chapter and verse” actually meant.

What indescribable apathy in the face of a golden opportunity. This man had no exam to prepare us for, no dull syllabus to force his hand. (The school, it may interest you to know, did not allow us to sit a GCSE in Religious Studies, because it objected to the fact that to do so would require studying “other religions”.) With such total freedom, the Reverend could have given us an immensely useful grounding in a text that has arguably shaped western values and western literature in more significant ways than any other written work in history. But no, he couldn’t be bothered. He was just waiting for retirement.

So, I smile to myself when I am reminded that I am supposedly in the “traditionalist” camp when it comes to education. Personally, I think that those of us in this camp should identify as something with a bit more of a rallying cry. How about “radical traditionalist”? A radical traditionalist believes that knowledge is not only important but the right of every child. A radical traditionalist takes on board the overwhelming body of evidence that direct instruction is more effective than discovery learning when working with novices. A radical traditionalist refuses to accept the soft bigotry of low expectations, the heinous and insulting prejudice that kids from ordinary backgrounds aren’t capable of academic rigour. I find it indescribably depressing how many people who consider themselves to be genuine liberals cheer on the pursuit of mediocrity for our most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of society, whilst patting themselves on the back for being progressive. Quite honestly, I don’t know how they sleep at night.

Digital snake-oil

Picture the scene. You’re in a posh restaurant. The sort with linen napkins, thick carpets and snooty waiters. Everyone is dressed smartly and all the subliminal messaging is telling you that – whatever the food is like – you are expected to behave in a certain way.

The couple next to you are hunched over, staring at their smart phones. So are the couple behind them. Your partner is also staring at his phone. When your gaze returns to the table, your own phone awaits. No, this is not an indictment of society’s mass phone addiction, it is an unfortunate situation rendered necessary by the fact that your holiday-provider has decided that Going Digital is A Good Idea. As part of your eye-wateringly expensive holiday package you might be entitled to eat in this restaurant, but apparently you’re not entitled to a menu that you can actually hold in your hands. No, you must access the menu by “following the QR code” using the camera on your phone. Each table has a glass ornament displaying the code, so you whip your smartphone out and away you go.

It was not just the fact that seeing people scrolling on their phones in a restaurant was depressing – which it was. It was also the fact that accessing the menu in this way afforded no tangible gains whatsoever: it was, in fact, a substantially sub-optimal way of looking at a menu. The very need for scrolling was an irritation, when real menus are arranged in a way that allows you to scan the whole offering in one. A traditional menu would have been- quite simply – a hundred times better. Even my husband heartily agreed, a man who had a career in software engineering and is a natural lover of all things digital.

This spectacularly pointless switch to digital puzzled me for the rest of the holiday. With the best will in the world, why would somebody do this? Have we actually hit the point where some people believe that things are made definitively better purely for the reason that they are sprinkled with digital fairy dust? The quite extraordinary stupidity of the whole thing was rendered even more ludicrous by the fact that the holiday company did not even have the imagination to exploit the (albeit slim) advantages that “going digital” could bring to the party. For example, if they were so determined to go the digital route, then why not share the QR code with customers ahead of time and encourage them to start choosing their menu options in advance? This would at least have added a whiff of anticipation, although I still would argue that a traditional menu would have been infinitely preferable once we were sat in the restaurant itself. Easy advance-sharing was literally the only potential advantage I could imagine arising from the digital model, and they didn’t even bother to do that. So, the gormless march towards everything going digital advances, it seems, with no thought applied either to the potential consequences or to how to actually reap the potential advantages it might afford.

Increasingly, secondary school students are provided with “everything they need” online. While digital tools will have meant some investment on the school’s part, I am suspicious that a lot of what happens now is actually about reducing their photocopying budget, an undeniable thorn in the side of every HoD who has responsibility for their department’s costs. Honestly, what schools spend on technology generally pales into insignificance when compared to their yearly photocopying budget. While really successful schools who are getting fantastic results and impressive Progress 8 scores have broadly shifted towards the use of printed booklets for the students and moved away from digital presentations on the part of the teacher, vast swathes of schools (including in the private sector) have shifted towards a digital model, where everything is presented to the students electronically and nothing is printed out. Ker-ching.

I have worked with dozens of students in this position and have seen the disastrous fallout of what this digital model does for students’ learning and understanding. Inevitably, like anything inherently flawed, it is the already-disadvantaged that it leaves behind. People seem to assume that being “disadvantaged” means a lack of access to expensive technology and it is true that there can be glaring differences between what an affluent child has access to by comparison with one who is eligible for free school meals. But this is not the only way that students can be disadvantaged and it is vastly outweighed by other, more serious handicaps. Think prior attainment, think organisational skills, think access to an ever-increasing range of vocabulary, think time and space. Students who are already struggling in class for a myriad of reasons – some of which may or may not relate to poverty – are demonstrably left behind when adults demand that they manage both their time and their resources in such an abstract way, often without guidance.

There is so much nonsense talked about the younger generation being fully au fait with the full range of digital technology on offer, as if being born in the digital age bestows young people with an innate knowledge and understanding of the skills and mindset required to navigate towards progress in the modern age. The reality is that most kids are completely clueless when it comes to managing their learning remotely. Of course they are! Just because a child has been pressing icons on the screen of an iPad since they were a toddler, this does not imbue them with the organisational skills required to manage their learning online. To assume so would be like assuming that a toddler who has mastered the fun that can be had from a pop-up reading book is thus fortified with the skills and knowledge required to negotiate a library full of journals, encyclopaedias and reference manuals.

An increasing number of students that I work with are studying the WJEC/Eduqas GCSE syllabus, the creators of which produce a simply baffling array of resources that even I took a while to get my head around. Some of them are aimed at teachers, some of them in theory designed to be student-friendly. Most schools dump all of these resources into an area where students can access them, a collection of ponderous PDF files that are long and academically challenging. The one file which is explicitly aimed at students is designed as a student booklet, with space in which students can write their translation and notes. Most schools don’t even bother print this one out, instructing the students to work electronically. I have tutees who have not held a pen in class for years, so wedded is their school to the use of tablets or Chromebooks. I could honestly weep for their basic skills and feel outraged that so many schools are so blatantly ignoring the research that we have on the link between the use of a pen and memory. These students come to me with simply no idea what they have supposedly studied, what materials are in their possession and what they are supposed to do with them. They are completely overwhelmed and can’t even articulate the basic content that they have theoretically covered in class.

Technology is an absolute wonder. In the last few years, I have embraced online learning to the extent that I have made a career out of it, I have embraced the time-saving advantages of AI and I am always open to the advantages that technical advances can bring. As someone in possession of the world’s worst sense of direction, I find the smartphone genuinely liberating and life-changing, as it enables me to negotiate my way confidently. It even knows all the local pathways! As someone with poor eyesight, I love the fact that there has been an explosion in the availability of audiobooks, and that I can now access most books and articles in a format that allows me to manipulate the size and shape of the font as well as the colour of the background. This is all wonderful! Believe me, I love technology! But I am heartily sick of two things that the digital snake-oil salesmen seem to have successfully convinced society of: firstly, the blind assumption that digital is always better, when in fact people should be asking themselves whether it is better and if so why – what other advantages might the technology bring and what are the potential pitfalls? Secondly, I am tired of the assumption that children born in the current epoch are all miraculously imbued with innate digital skills and knowledge, a bizarre fantasy which seems thoroughly ingrained, despite the ever-increasing pile of evidence to the contrary.