Education – Emma Williams: Latin tutor

Another brick in the wall

This week, I upset a few people. That’s nothing new, for it is undeniable that I am the sort of person who sometimes opens her mouth merely to change feet. Often, this has landed me in trouble, especially when working for managers that like their staff nice and compliant; sometimes, it has earned me some respect, when I was fortunate enough to work for robust managers, those who are confident enough to respond well to challenge, even when that challenge could — in all honesty — have been better or more politely worded. When I think about some of the things I’ve said to and about management over the years, I consider myself jolly lucky to have been in a unionised workplace. Yet, in the school where I spent the second half of my teaching career, I am also grateful to have worked with managers who would listen, take note and respond thoughtfully when I said my piece, however clumsily: it demonstrates a confidence and an emotional resilience that is not to be underestimated.

These days, of course, I work for myself, so I have to go to social media to find people to upset. I can’t recall whether or not I have mentioned this on my blog before, but I have recently removed myself entirely from the platform formerly known as Twitter. It’s been something of a wrench, having been on there more or less since its inception, but needs must and it is true to say that the platform is not what it used to be. As a consequence, I have begun to spend a little bit more time on LinkedIn, which also seems to have changed, in my opinion for the better: it no longer seems to be solely dominated by corporate types humble-bragging about their mid-range sports car.

I’ve never been one for leaving platforms solely because of who owns them. Let’s face it, compared to my little world, every tech giant billionaire is probably, in relative terms, a pretty awful person. But when the owner of a platform has already proved their amorality in how they treat their staff and their customers, then goes on to double down in defending people’s “right” to manipulate, share and disseminate exploitative images of women and children, claiming that it is a “free speech” issue (something I care about passionately and do not appreciate being used as a smokescreen for abuse and exploitation), then that’s way over the line for me. So, farewell Elon, you moral cipher of a man: you won’t be getting my eyes on the advertisements that fund you any more. And hello, LinkedIn: let’s see what you have to offer. I have been pleased to find that there is an increasing amount of educational discussion on LinkedIn, and many of the brilliant go-to teacher-voices that I originally found on Twitter in its heyday are now actively posting on there. Furthermore, there is also plenty of talk about other relevant issues that interest me, some of them much more challenging than anything one would have found on there a few years ago, when LinkedIn was dedicated solely to corporate bragging and self-promotion.

The reality of being more active on such a platform seems inevitably (for me at least) to result in some low-level beef. Given that it is ultimately a business platform and thus a place where people showcase themselves and what they are bringing to market, it is inevitable that LinkedIn will include multiple voices who are crafting their image as someone who offers something to the education space that is not traditional classroom teaching (for which, given the well-documented recruitment and retention crisis, one generally does not have to advertise oneself). Such people include me these days and indeed I think and write a lot about what one-to-one tutoring enables me to do that was not possible in the mainstream classroom. The way I work now is truly liberating and I am grateful for it. What puzzles and concerns me, however, is the fact that so many people who are outside of the traditional classroom space seem remarkably keen on bashing the traditional system, and it was my objection to this that got me into trouble. I was assured that it is the system they are bashing, not the classroom teachers within it, and some people seemed to find it very insulting that I should think otherwise. But what they don’t seem to understand is that it can be pretty difficult to tell the difference. In bashing the system, they are actively contributing to the increasingly dismal situation in which classroom teachers find themselves. It is truly wretched to be a part of a system that is being relentlessly criticised on all sides, and this fact is undoubtedly contributing to the mass exodus of teachers from the profession. Harry Hudson has written very eloquently about this in his book, Must Do Better: how to improve the image of teaching.

For the avoidance of doubt, and in case anyone needs to hear this, it’s really tough out there in the modern classroom. I think more of us need to be saying this out loud. I am probably guilty of not being frank enough about it, so here is me saying that after 21 years at the chalkface, I’d had enough of being treated with contempt. In my final year, when I confessed to my husband that I wanted to resign from my job, I tried to explain to him what working in a modern school can feel like: I said, “you know that feeling when you’re walking down a towpath and you see a bunch of scary-looking lads hanging about that you have to walk through and your brain goes into high alert, wondering whether they’re going to shout something or surround you or just generally make you feel uncomfortable?” He nodded. Everyone knows that feeling. “Well,” I said, “it’s like that but all the time. Plus, those lads are your responsibility, and how you handle the situation on the towpath is at worst going to be called into question by your boss, at best will massively add to your already-horrendous workload if you decide to follow it up.”

There are very few jobs in which one can feel personally belittled and intimidated on a daily basis: teaching is one of them. Add to that the fact that in teaching, you are frequently asked what you could have done better or more empathetically in order for you to have avoided creating the situation in which you felt belittled and intimidated: I am genuinely not sure that this happens in many other spheres. Most places I go to, I see a sign up telling me that rude or threatening behaviour will not be tolerated. There’s one in our local vets, one at the GP’s surgery and I saw one in A&E when I had a surprisingly zestful response to some antibiotics a few weeks ago. Fantastic. I’m all for the signs and for the message that they convey. But schools don’t have those signs. Teachers just have to suck it up, apparently. Rude and contemptuous behaviour towards teaching staff has increasingly become par for the course in modern schools, and our teachers and TAs are expected to let it bounce off them like water off the proverbial duck’s back. We’re the adults in the room, we’re told: that may be so, but a notable number of the students didn’t get the memo.

One of the reasons I decided to move on from classroom teaching was not simply the unpleasant situations in which I increasingly found myself: it was the fact that I could feel my attitude towards young people starting to shift, and I didn’t want that to happen. I am glad to say that I hugely enjoy the time that I spend with the young people I now work with, but before I left the classroom I feared that my whole perspective on teenagers would be damaged forever, were I to spend much more time within a system that nobody is willing to support any more and everybody seems to think is part of the problem. See, this is the issue: many people — an alarming number of whom are calling themselves “educators” — seem somehow to have talked themselves into believing that the traditional education system is a net negative, that schools fail to prepare young people for “the modern world” (whatever that is: people have been talking about it since at least 1975), that the imparting of skills and knowledge in the conventional manner is deeply inadequate and should be condemned to history. We don’t need no education, we don’t need no thought control.

When belittlement is your daily reality, it can be pretty galling to scroll through social media and find yourself on a loop telling you how our Gradgrindian school system is failing young people, how every child exhibiting low-level defiance is simply dysregulated and misunderstood, how every uniform rule is an imposition on their individuality and an insult to their personal liberty, how every teacher who attempts to lay down some basic ground-rules is just another brick in the wall imprisoning them and preventing them from blossoming.

If we are to provide an education that is free to all at the point of contact (and I cling to the belief that this principle is non-negotiable), then traditional classroom teaching is here to stay. The alternative providers don’t want to hear it, but that’s the bottom line. And until we start believing that most of the youngsters in our care are able to rise to it, that the overwhelming majority of those young people are in fact infinitely capable of being both polite and attentive, if only such basic expectations were requested of them, then I fear we are set upon a path that will not end happily for any of those young people. To be clear, letting a student off is letting them down. When empathy with a student who is struggling to behave leads us down the path of least resistance, that is not kindness: far from it. It is sending them the message that we don’t care, that we don’t believe that they are capable of meeting the most basic of standards that we set for ourselves and for the rest of humanity. When we excuse challenging behaviour because of an individual’s difficult circumstances, we have to ask ourselves what we’re really communicating to that student about their potential. Just think about it: because once you see it that way, you can’t unsee it. I don’t know who coined the phrase, but it couldn’t be summed up more perfectly than this: the soft bigotry of low expectations. By adjusting our most basic standards, we make it clear to a certain kind of student that we’re writing them off as incapable of basic manners. Nothing — truly nothing — could be more inequitable or more damning for that child and their future.

This wonderful photo was taken by Maria Teneva on Unsplash

A general lack of guidance

I struggle to understand why so little guidance is given in many schools about how students should go about the process of learning. To be clear, I’m not talking about school assemblies on “study skills”, which I realise that most teenagers will zone out during. No, guidance needs to come directly from each individual classroom teacher, the subject expert; it also needs to be explicitly taught, modelled and demonstrated on a regular basis. Schools need to agree what methods they are going to recommend and this needs to be reflected right across the school in all subjects, tailored specifically to what works best in each academic discipline.

Startlingly often, students are still being told: here is your Latin set text, now off you go and learn the first section. I was guilty of this in my first few years of teaching — rote-learning comes relatively easy to me and I didn’t really comprehend the fact that most students need to be shown how to go about engaging with the process of committing something to memory. Furthermore, I was working in a very high-achieving grammar school, where we were not really encouraged to support students proactively with their learning; it was assumed that all the students in the school could cope well in academia without such support. This was a foolish assumption, but it was the one we were subliminally encouraged to make.

When it comes to the literature element of the Latin GCSE, whether or not a student knows the translation of the set text off by heart and whether they can relate that knowledge to the the Latin version in front of them is without doubt the single most important differentiator between a student’s success and failure in the exam. Despite this inescapable fact, few Latin teachers appear willing to dedicate classroom time to the learning process, so wedded are they to the conviction that students can manage the learning in their own time. Many of my tutees have been told time and again that they don’t know the text well enough, that they need to learn it, that they need to spend more time doing so. Yet when I ask them, “what methods have you practised in class?” they stare at me, blankly. I have come to realise that most students are not being taught how to learn things off by heart, beyond the most rudimentary of suggestions.

Now, I am not naive. Having taught in secondary schools for 21 years, 13 of those years in a comprehensive setting, I am more than well aware of students’ uncanny ability to claim that they have “never been taught” something that they have in fact been told on multiple occasions. However, the extreme cluelessness of so many of my clients when it comes to what to do and their apparent awe when they are taught some very basic methods such as colour-coding and the first-letter technique do leave me increasingly convinced that many classroom teachers are simply not dedicating enough (or in some extreme cases any) classroom time to learning methodologies. I’ll bet most of them are doing what I used to do in my first few years of teaching — giving students a few bullet points of advice on how to go about learning the texts, then assuming that those students will remember this going forward. But why do we believe such nonsense? We would not (I hope) present them with the endings of the 1st declension in one lesson then assume that they will remember those endings for the rest of time — so why on earth should that be the case when it comes to study skills?

One possible reason is teachers’ anxiety about time. One of the greatest strains that GCSE Latin teachers are under is time pressure. Very few schools offer enough space on the timetable for our subject and I am fully aware that making it through both set texts within the time available is a mammoth task. I rarely finished the second set text prior to the end of March; on the few occasions that I managed to do so, it was real cause for celebration. Yet despite this, as my career progressed, I allocated an ever-increasing amount of classroom time to teaching students how to go about the learning process and also to giving them short bursts of learning time to actually get on with it in silence. Any spare few minutes that I found myself in possession of at the end of a new section or a new concept, I would allow them to bow their heads and spend 10 minutes using the first-letter technique to get a few sentences of the text under their belts. I wonder whether classroom teachers are afraid of allowing students this time, as if it somehow undermines the important of our teaching role. I used to remind students that I was painfully aware how much pressure I was putting them under, asking them to rote-learn a new chunk of text almost every single week. So part of the deal I made with them was that — whenever I could — I would let them have a few minutes of classroom time to kick-start the process.

The benefits of allocating this time are twofold. Firstly, it literally does get the children started on the process and is an opportunity to remind them once again of the methods that have been recommended: I used to put them up on a summary slide, even when they could all recite the methods without hesitation. Secondly, while students are studying, a teacher can circulate the room and check whether they are actually using the recommended methods — there will always be a few determined recalcitants, who claim that the recommended methods “don’t work for them”. This is when a teacher needs to be strong. The evidence for what works and what doesn’t work in terms of how we learn is overwhelming, and unless that child can perform perfectly in every test you give them then they need to get on board with the methods.

As for what the methods should be, I recommend a variety but one is definitely stand-out brilliant and so far has worked for every student I have ever met. So if you haven’t read my old post on how to use the first-letter technique then do so straight away — you will never look back! For broader guidance on effective study I would recommend looking at the work of Dr. Paul Penn, Professor of Psychology and author of The Psychology of Effective Studying. His book is fantastic, as is his YouTube channel.

Reflections on Inflection

One of the biggest challenges that confronts students of Latin is that it is a heavily inflected language, meaning that the endings of words carry a large portion of the grammatical information.

English, by contrast, tends to express meaning through word order or auxiliary words. In Latin, nouns, pronouns and adjectives change their endings to mark case, number and gender; this means that a single word can appear in numerous forms that look unfamiliar at first glance. Verbs also change their form extensively to indicate tense, mood, voice, person and number. As a result, learners cannot simply scan a sentence from left to right and piece together meaning based on the sequence of words in the way they might in modern English. Instead, they must train themselves to recognise patterns in the endings, identify which role each word plays in the sentence, and mentally reconstruct the basic structure before a translation can emerge. This process of analysis can feel especially daunting for the novice.

Likewise, when learning vocabulary, it is not enough to learn the basic word. If a student simply learns that ferre means “to carry” (it’s the origin of the word ferry in English) they then fail to recognise it in most other forms. In the perfect tense, the verb changes completely: “they carry” would be tulerunt. Likewise, it’s participle is different again: “carried” (or “having been carried”) is lati. These forms need to be learnt if the student is to stand any change of recognising the word in a translation.

To be clear, all languages do this to some extent. Whenever a student is despairing as to the myriad of ways in which a Latin verb can change, I like to point out to them that if they were learning English as a non-native speaker, then they would have to learn that the verb “to be” changes from is, to are, to were, to am, to has been and so on. They would have to learn that the comparative of good is better, that the superlative of bad is worst. All languages have such challenges and while there are always underlying patterns that one can work with, even these can seem overwhelming at the beginning.

It is an easy assumption for novices to make that they can do their vocabulary learning entirely on their own, without a subject expert. While it is true that such learning is something that can and should be done regularly as part of private study, it is in fact essential that a tutor get involved with it in order to support students with the process of learning how the words look in different forms. Much of what I spend time on is the process of showing students words (most especially verbs) in their different forms, especially those which occur most commonly in the examination. A student may have learnt the fact that cado means “I fall”, but does this mean that they will recognise ceciderunt as “they fell”? Without support, this is highly unlikely. One of the skills of what I do is to focus my support on such words and to advise students and those supporting them on the learning that they can do on their own: for example, adverbs do not conjugate or decline, so those are a really good area where students can invest the time at home.

Very few schools test their students on the vocabulary list in different forms, but the very best ones do. I can count on one hand the number of schools where this is done regularly and effectively, but the difference between a student drilled in this way and one that has been merely tested on the original form of the word is palpable. Some schools invite students to learn the principal parts of verbs but this is relatively unusual and most commonly treated as “a bonus” when the reality is that learning verbs without a knowledge of their inflected parts is actually a waste of time.

One of the biggest problems with all existing text books is their lack of focus on vocabulary acquisition. While modern languages tend to build units of learning around vocabulary and place the accretion of key words at the centre of students’ learning, Latinists continue to treat vocabulary learning as a bolt-on and place little to no emphasis on weaving it into the grammar teaching that goes on. This really is bizarre and with the advent of Chat GPT and other free platforms capable of generating simple Latin sentences there really is no excuse. Schools should be re-writing the curriculum and basing the sentences used for grammar practice exclusively around the GCSE word list. When it is now possible to dump a word list into your AI platform of choice and ask it to churn out as many sentences as you desire using that vocabulary and practising the grammar point you are working on, there really is no excuse whatsoever.

While schools continue to rely on text books such as the Cambridge Latin Course and Suburani, students will continue to be let down when it comes to vocabulary acquisition, never mind the grammar. As we await the inevitable changes to the GCSE course it is difficult not to feel somewhat depressed about what will happen next. A new vocabulary list will be issued, not dramatically different from the last one, but different enough to mean that all previous materials will require checking and editing. (Last time it happened, 25 words were removed from the prescribed list, and it took a couple of years and a lot of begging for the board to release the list of words that they had removed rather than leaving teachers to work it out: as I recall, it was produced on request at various INSET gatherings and was never in wide circulation). Current text books such as Taylor & Cullen’s Latin to GCSE will thus remain useful but not quite in line with the examinations on offer and most schools will continue to use already-published courses which bear little to no relation as to what’s on the GCSE list. When I start working with a student, I already know which words will be a problem for them. For example, every single student that has studied using the Cambridge Latin Course will think that the common word poena means “poet” when in fact it means “punishment”. This is because the CLC teaches them the word poeta early on and never introduces them to the word poena.

When practice makes too perfect?

Every teacher wants their students to succeed. All teachers put in hours of effort to build the competence and confidence of their students. Yet across most schools in most subjects, there is a subtle but pervasive problem: teachers giving students tasks that directly contradict the conditions under which students will ultimately be assessed. Perhaps the most common way I see this manifested is when teachers set an exam question for homework but do not set a time limit. Students are encouraged to produce their best answer, without the contraints of timed conditions. On the surface, such a task may seem not only harmless but supportive: but what are the risks involved?

Teachers rarely encourage harmful practice out of sheer carelessness: quite the opposite. Such practice arises from good intentions. Teachers often want their students to slow down, to think carefully and to produce their best work. Removing time pressure feels like a way of fostering both their learning and their skills. Teachers are also conscious that timed tasks can cause stress and many, understandably, fear overwhelming their students; ironically, it is most often the already-anxious student that is most damaged by the practice of no time-limits, since the temptation to spend an excessive amount of time on a task in order to produce a perfect answer may be overwhelming for them. Likewise, such students are usually the most deeply affected by the looming prospect of time pressure in an exam. Thus, in their desire to reduce pressure on their students, teachers may unwittingly create more pain for the most anxious of students in both the short-term and the long-term.

Another reason why teachers may set a task without time parameters is that when students are given more time, they often produce more complete work. Completed work gives the teacher more to comment on and the student more to reflect on. Students are more likely to manage to write something at length if they are not under strict exam conditions and thus teachers have more to work with when it comes to marking and feedback. Again, however, we are faced with a painful irony as a result: not only are students practising the wrong skills, their teachers’ time is being wasted as it is being spent giving detailed feedback on irrelevant skills. To be frank, everybody loses.

What is thus most surprising about some teachers’ reluctance to impose time-limits on their students is that they fail to see how setting time-limits is a win-win situation for everyone. Not only will the student benefit from the fact that they are practising precisely what they will need to do in the examination, that student will benefit in the short-term from a homework task that is time-bound and manageable. Far too often, students are set open-ended tasks which can expand to fill the time they have available: for anxious and/or high-achieving students, this can be almost infinite. Likewise, the time that teachers have to spend on marking and feedback is minimal and needs to be tightly-managed, for the sake of their own workload and to ensure that the time they do spend on that task is valuable and effective. I will never forget Professor Paul Black (50% of the brains behind the now-ubiquitous educational concept of Assessment for Learning) stating to a roomful of teachers that we were all marking too much, too often, for too long and (here’s the really devastating bit) that we were all wasting our time. That was 25 years ago. And we’re still doing it.

Outside of workload, a further risk that arises from setting students exam-style questions with no time limit is the illusion of competence. Cognitive psychology has repeatedly demonstrated that students — and indeed their teachers — can be misled by what feels effective in the moment. When a student has unlimited time on a practice essay, their cognitive load is relatively low. There is no pressure to recall information quickly, organise ideas under time constraints or make strategic trade-offs between detail and speed. As a result, tasks feel more manageable and the final product looks polished. Students and teachers might both reasonably conclude that they are exam-ready on that topic, but this belief is built on a false foundation. What are they actually ready for? In real exams, time limits force rapid decision-making. Perhaps what is most important is that students must develop an understanding that examinations do not demand perfect, polished answers: to expect this under time pressure would be grossly unreasonable. Students must learn the importance of producing a sensible, structured response that is as well-crafted as can reasonably be expected in the time allowed. This is not the same thing as what one might produce given infinite preparation and review time, for example when drafting a manuscript for publication. When exam practice is performed without time constraints, students may master individual components of the task (knowledge, technique, structure) but they will fail to integrate them at speed during the exam. Students who have never practised in timed conditions may also experience extreme panic when they first encounter them, at a time when it is too late to build that resilience.

Research tells us that learning sticks when students are forced to retrieve information under conditions that mimic the challenge they will face. Slow, open-book, or time-unlimited tasks do not recreate the retrieval demands of an examination. They allow students to look things up, pause, think in a leisurely fashion or redraft their answers. Yet again, they are practising the wrong skills, as these behaviours are impossible in an exam room. For a skill to transfer from practice to final performance, the practice must include the key features of the performance context. Practising sections of a piano piece slowly can help with accuracy, but to perform at performance tempo, you must ultimately practise at performance tempo: you must also avoid repeating mistakes in your practice, lest they be embedded. The same principle applies to writing essays, solving equations and analysing sources.

Musical practice is not the only example of a process that academic teachers could learn from. The older and more experienced I get, the more I realise what an oversight it is that academic teachers do not listen to and learn from our sporting peers. Athletes understand the training process: they understand how to break challenges down into achievable goals and what is needed in order to practise for a final performance. More and more, I talk to my students about their studies in a way that draws on the processes used by competitive sports men and women.

With many students facing their Mock examinations at around this time, the extent to which they are prepared for those is very much on everyone’s mind. Without a doubt, most teachers understand all too well that students need to be familiar with the look and feel of assessment questions, and try to produce questions which mimic the phrasing and typical format of the questions that they will face. They also know that students need to practise retrieving their knowledge without notes, prompts, or textbook guidance. Yet the thing that is most commonly overlooked with exam-matched practice are realistic time constraints. I would argue that to encourage students to practise answering these without the additional parameter of time constraints is a dangerous and counter-productive waste of everyone’s time.

Psychology matters

Most people understand that resilience is important. I’m not sure there is anyone from any walk of life who would argue that resilience is overrated and/or an unnecessary life-skill. What people tend to disagree on is the level of challenge. How much resilience should we demand of ourselves and our children? How much pressure is too much? If we could answer this question, we could probably find the answer to much of life, and we could certainly write the text book on parenting.

I’m a reasonably strong believer in the fact that most things that are worth doing are hard work, including the process of study. The fact that study is hard is rarely denied by students or by their parents, but what’s interesting is what you find when you unpack these beliefs a little further. I often refer clients to a book by the university lecturer and psychologist Dr. Paul Penn, who has written an outstanding book on the psychology of effective study. He argues that most students avoid more effective methods because they are actually under the false impression that the process of studying should come easily to them. In a recent post on LinkedIn, Paul wrote the following: “I can’t emphasise enough how important it is to convey to students that their intuition about what works and what doesn’t work when it comes to studying is often wrong. This is why the entire first chapter of my book is dedicated to metacognition and specifically how a raft of metacognitive errors can compel students to persist with ineffective studying methods because they “feel good or right”. Chief among these errors is the conflation of ease with effectiveness and short-term performance with longer-term learning. The notion that learning is supposed to be an effortful and difficult process is often revelatory to students (in a good way), because they tend to assume that finding studying challenging is a negative indictment on them and therefore gravitate towards ineffective methods such as re-reading, that generate illusory impressions of progress. Once they realise that failure is an integral part of learning, difficulty is often desirable and short-term performance should not be confused with longer-term learning, they are much more amenable to implementing advice on effective studying.“

The emphasis is mine, as I feel the final words in this quote are absolutely crucial. In recent months I have started using more and more analogies to explain this phenomenon to the young learners that I work with. Many youngsters in their mid to late teens play sport or work out at the gym, indeed there is a significant trend in that generation for weight and resistance training (when I was at school the trend was all aerobics and feeling the burn). While not every student works out, a notable number of them either do so or at least have a vague grasp of the concept. It can be really useful to their understanding of study to liken their efforts to a workout in the gym. Weight-lifting is a process which should be done to the point of failure, or near-failure. Just because you have found it impossible to lift an 8 kilo weight for the eighth time, that does not render your workout worthless: quite the opposite, in fact. The very fact that you have worked on those muscles to the point of failure or near-failure is the very same process that builds muscle and will make the lifting easier in the long-run. So short-term “failures” lead to long-term gains.

This is all well and good, and it’s important to explain this underlying truth to those who are new to the process of study (or, indeed, to working out). But I think there are other things that we can always do to support ourselves through such challenges, whatever they may be, and these come down to the fact that we need to forgive ourselves for the inescapable fact that the vast majority of us are naturally reluctant to leave our comfort zones. We’ve all met the odd exceptional person who runs endurance marathons across the arctic or the desert or both in the same week. These people are not useful models. The overwhelming majority of us find it hard to motivate ourselves to stick with things that are difficult and, to take inspiration from James Clear, author of Atomic Habits, we need to accept that fact and to help ourselves out by removing as many barriers as possible. It is not productive or effective to tell ourselves we’re useless when we feel like giving up: it is much more useful to investigate whether we could be doing something slightly differently in order to mitigate against the likelihood of giving up. This is something that many teenagers fall foul of, especially those with a perfectionist streak: they set themselves up for inevitable long-term failure by failing to forgive themselves for short-term defeats.

As regular readers will know, I am currently in the process of learning to run on a regular basis. I experimented with the Couch to 5K programme and then switched to using music instead. Try as I might, I hit a wall when it came to running for anything longer than three to four minutes and I was becoming frustrated and upset by my lack of progress. I wasn’t enjoying the runs I was doing, in fact I was starting to dread them, and a little voice in my head was starting to say: you’re not going to stick with this.

Rather than beating myself up, I addressed the fact that I was at risk of giving up and faced it head-on. Let’s be honest, for every person on social media announcing their incredible progress at a feat such as running, there are at least ten, possibly twenty others, who have quietly given up on the whole thing. I don’t want to be in that group. To quote Marie Murphy, Professor of exercise and health at Ulster university, “the best form of exercise is the one you will do. That trumps everything else.” While fitness experts can argue about the minutiae of marginal gains and optimal exercise programmes, the general population is getting less and less fit because they’re not doing any of it. Sure, it would be optimal if I could stick with pushing myself to run for more than four minutes: but if I find this so miserable that I give up altogether, the end result will be entirely negative. So, I’ve completely switched the process and am now using the walk-run method, starting with 30 seconds of each. It is utterly blissful and I am enjoying the process again. This week, I cut the walk break by five seconds, so running for 30 seconds and then walking for 25 and it was absolutely fine. I will continue to reduce the walk breaks marginally, and see how that goes.

Somewhat anxiously, I shared my decision with a friend. This friend, by the way, can run 10K without stopping or taking a walk break. She told me I’d made absolutely the right decision and reinforced the mantra that sticking with the process was more important than anything else. We chatted about the psychology of cutting the walk times rather than increasing the run-times. Ultimately, the result will (hopefully) be the same, but for me there is something about the psychology of “I only have to run for 30 seconds!” that really works for me. She related a conversation that she had overheard at a swimming pool, where one woman was saying that she preferred 50m to 25m pools (“30 lengths feels so much easier than 60!”) whilst the other preferred 25m (“but each 50m length is sooooo long!”). As my friend pointed out, each of those swimmers is ultimately doing the same workout, but they feel differently about the two different approaches, and that’s what matters. Whatever happens, the trick is to adjust your challenges so that they remain challenges but are not so insurmountable that you risk calling it a day.

If there is a magic formula for that and someone discovers it, they’ll make a fortune.

Results and Expectations

As GCSE results roll in today, I’ve been thinking about expectations and how they shape our response to students’ results. It’s a painful and undeniable fact that there are some students every year who will not only be disappointed but will have to deal with the disappointment of their own parents. In my experience, this usually happens with relatively high-achieving students, some of whom have families that expect nothing but the best. This can transfigure into the genuinely distressing situation in which a line of excellent grades will be met with disinterest.

I sometimes wonder whether this is a very modern phenomenon. I recall a family friend, whose daughter was a year or two older than I was and who therefore sat her GCSEs before I did. She achieved straight As and I remember my father (a man of excellent academic ability himself) being genuinely agog. He simply couldn’t believe that anyone could achieve the top grade in every single subject. I remember thinking the same. This, of course, was long before the existence of the A* and the starred grade was indeed brought in as an attempt to recognise the absolute top of the top – an elite class of those who achieved the A-grade and not originally envisaged as something that would be achieved in multiple subjects. Likewise, the current grade 9. As many of us predicted at the time, this philosophy was completely lost on everyone, and failed with immediate effect: the A* and the grade 9 became simply the top grade as far as everyone was concerned and as a result, we now have families who report “disappointment” with an A-grade at A level or a grade 8 at GCSE.

While I’ve never been one to shy away from setting high standards, I really do have to wonder what’s gone wrong for a person who isn’t happy with their child achieving an A-grade or an 8. What do they think the problem is? Exam results are undeniably important, but they do not define you as an academic. Want to know my GCSE grades? Okay. I sat nine GCSEs in 1990, relatively few by modern standards, but that’s how it was in those days. Some students sat nine, some sat only seven or eight. I achieved six grade As, one grade B and two grade Cs. To this day I swear they mixed up my biology paper with somebody else’s, as I was expecting a C grade (along with the C grades I did achieve in maths and chemistry) but that subject came out at a grade B. I was probably more knocked out by that grade than by any of my others, which overall were much better than I was expecting.

My line-up of grades would probably be considered pretty mediocre by some of the families I have worked with. They will perhaps be rather surprised (possibly even alarmed!) to learn that I did not achieve straight As in everything. But here’s the thing. Not only did I go on to achieve a 1st class honours degree, I achieved the highest degree mark in my whole year group (the Head of Department told me). After that, I achieved a Masters with Distinction and then went on to complete a PhD. My perfectly decent but perhaps unremarkable GCSE grades were no barrier to this, and while I don’t want to sound like Jeremy Clarkson rolling out his tedious yearly claim to a champagne-fuelled, Lamborghini-driving lifestyle on the back of two Us in his A levels, I would definitely suggest that everyone should keep their exam grades in perspective.

There are numerous reasons why I wasn’t one of the absolute top-performers at school. I wasn’t very good at studying when I was younger and it took me a while to learn the methods that worked best for me (there was no decent research or advice in that area in those days). As an adult, I am fascinated by the psychology of effective study, and it is a real focus in my tuition sessions. If you want to consult a genuine expert in the field, look up Dr. Paul Penn, who is a psychologist and researcher who specialises in how to study. You can visit his website here and he has a great YouTube channel. I interviewed him for Teachers Talk Radio in 2022, and you can listen to that episode here.

Other reasons for my relatively unremarkable performance in my GCSEs? Well, I didn’t enjoy school very much and if I’m brutally frank I found a lot of my teachers tiresome and dull. That’s no excuse for anything of course, but it may have been a factor in my distinctly average peformance in some subjects. Finally — and this one’s the killer — I know that a lot of teachers believed me to be significantly cleverer than I actually was. That might sound odd for someone who ended up with PhD, but quite honestly a doctorate is no indicator of brilliance. You wouldn’t believe the number of mediocre academics who manage to scrape together enough to qualify for that title. Making it through a PhD is actually a case of whether you can hack the process and apply the required amount of discipline rather than an indicator of genuine excellence. As I once heard someone say of the difference between those who make it in elite weight-lifting and those who do not, the main deciding factor is whether or not you have the tolerance to endure the sheer, unrelenting tedium of repeated effort.

So why did my teachers believe that I was so clever? I think it’s because I was very articulate and good at writing. As I came to realise when I read The Language Instinct by Steve Pinker, while this is not necessarily an indicator of high intelligence, it is assumed to be so by most people, even those who are supposed to be experts in the field of education. Thus, as a result of my linguistic fluency, all of my teachers laboured under the impression that I was seriously smart. My genuinely poor performance in mathematics and the sciences was put down to laziness, bloody-mindedness, wilful ignorance or just about any other character flaw you could imagine. (God forbid it could be down to their poor teaching). I tried many times to tell my maths and science teachers that I was genuinely struggling and needed help with basic concepts, but I was ignored. The only reason I passed maths was because they eventually realised that I was in serious danger of failing (due, in their view, to my sheer wilfulness) and — in a panic about their pass-rate — they made the correct call to enter me for the intermediate paper, which is designed to help candidates get over the threshold to achieve a C grade. The only reason I passed chemistry was because in Year 11 we gained a new teacher who was not particularly likeable but was actually rather good — a rarity indeed, for most of our teachers were truly terrible, as they could be in the 1980s. After a few weeks of observing my wild guesswork when it came to balancing chemical equations, he looked me straight in the eye and said, “you don’t even know what the valency table is, do you?” I enlightened him as to the fact that not only was this true, but I didn’t actually understand what the periodic table was either. Or indeed … anything. He nodded. He gave me some basic remedial help plus a few bluffing techniques and I made it through the exam thanks to him. As for biology, like I say … Lord knows. I swear to this day that it was an error and I wasn’t going to tell them that.

So, as results are announced today, I find myself thinking of those students and their families across the country who will be disappointed with excellent grades. How very sad that sounds. My grades were a source of celebration in my household and I recall not only that I was delighted with them but that my parents were too. While we all want to set high standards for ourselves and our children, let us not forget that a string of top grades in everything are not the be-all and end-all for a happy and successful life. Even Einstein didn’t get top grades in all of his subjects.

Rites and Rituals

As thousands of students receive their A level, T level, BTEC and VTQ results today, I find myself pondering the fact that the ritual of receiving such results is very different from how it used to be. The enduring image published in all the newspapers of students leaping into the air and waving an opened envelope had become a virtual meme it was such a hackneyed joke; yet students these days are much more likely to be alone in their bedroom when they receive the information about their next steps.

While many schools still present results to students in person in the traditional way, most students will already have received confirmation of whether or not they have secured their preferred college place via an online portal first thing in the morning: the colleges and universities know their results before they do, and these days such information can be communicated instantly. This very modern take on a traditional rite of passage can feel like a bit of a let-down for those of us who went through the system some time ago, and it has made me think about the assumptions we make when it comes to life’s milestones and the rituals that accompany them.

This week I started watching a drama on Netflix. It seems to be one of the multiple television productions that has passed me by over the years, as apparently it was first aired on ITV several years ago. Finding Alice stars the wonderful Keeley Hawes as a woman whose life is upended when her husband dies after falling down the stairs of their newly-built home. The series explores the secrets that Harry left behind and the impact on his family. Episode 2 centres around Alice’s unconventional decision to hold Harry’s funeral (and burial!) on their own property, and one is expected to make some serious stretches of the imagination in terms of how she gets around the legal ramifications of such a process. This didn’t particularly bother me, as obviously a drawn-out exploration of the administrative nightmare that would be triggered in real life would not make for gripping drama.

What I did find myself irritated by, however, was the portrayal of Alice’s selected Celebrant for the funeral. It was made clear in the drama that the deceased was not religious and that there should therefore be no religious elements to his send-off. As if we were in a drama from decades ago, the Celebrant appeared bemused and perturbed by the notion that there would be no references to the Christian religion whatsoever. On the day itself, she even — and by this point I was shouting at the television — started to perform the sign of the cross in front of the gathering before she “remembered” that there was to be no religion involved and managed to stop herself mid-blessing.

Now, depending on what community you hail from, it may be the case that you have not had the opportunity to attend a non-religious funeral. Let me assure you that they are commonplace and uncontroversial. There are a plethora of Celebrants who lead such ceremonies and many of them will point blank refuse to include any religious references, never mind trying to sneak them in. Some take a more eclectic approach (one which my mother, who trained as a Celebrant for Humanists UK, used to call the “Pick ‘n’ Mix” option) and will throw in a prayer or a hymn if you want one. It was genuinely mind-boggling to think that a drama written as recently as 2021 would choose to imply not only that non-religious funerals are unusual and extraordinary, but that even those who provide such services find them so! With almost 40% of the UK population identifying themselves as “no religion” in the 2021 census, it really does beggar belief that non-religious ceremonies are still being portrayed on our television screens as a bizarre and unusual turn of events worthy of quirky comedy value.

As a person of no religion myself, I have a wide variety of friends with a range of beliefs. I have attended religious ceremonies, but I have also attended many funerals entirely without religion. Sometimes they have been held in a traditional crematorium, sometimes in a woodland burial ground. When the Celebrant has been a member of Humanists UK, the ceremonies have been strictly non-religious, but others have woven in a small nod to faith at the behest of some family members. I have even attended a baby naming ceremony run by someone who described themselves as “an inter-faith minister” and that one was possibly the weirdest. If there’s one thing I find myself agreeing with the deeply religious on, it’s that you surely can’t just pick the bits that happen appeal to you from a variety of religions, like some kind of spiritual smorgasbord.

Unlike the celebrant in Finding Alice, I do not believe in doing things the way they’ve always been done out of a misplaced attachment to ritual. Hopefully, the students receiving their results today will only benefit from the smoothness, immediacy and efficiency afforded to us by our new gods of technology. It is all too easy to be misty-eyed about traditional rites of passage, when in fact the modern way of doing things is far better and frankly less agonising than the way things used to be. These days, decisions are made immediately and the clearing process is a thousand times better and more efficient than it was in my day. You can even clear up as well as down! Everyone benefits from this. I have no doubt that plenty of students will still be leaping into the air when they receive their results, whether the Daily Mail is there to photograph them or not.

The thrilling anticipation of GCSE “reform”

In the last week or so, news has been trickling in from clients who sat the final GCSE Latin exam on June 3rd. Everyone seemed pleased with the content, with no nasty surprises reported. Once again, it was relatively easy to predict the kinds of questions that would come up, as the papers are – broadly speaking – quite formulaic and unsurprising. This is perhaps to balance the fact that the content is so extremely difficult for candidates at GCSE level to cope with. The content is tough to learn, the exam itself is straightforward for candidates who have taken on the challenge, which broadly amounts to one long game of memorisation.

Given that we have a new government, who are currently doing a curriculum review, teachers are braced once again for GCSE reform. I find it difficult not to be horribly cynical about the whole thing, largely because I have been in education long enough to know that these so-called reforms usually amount to change for the sake of it, particularly in my subject. Since I started teaching in 1999, there have been multiple changes to the curriculum, none of which have made any tangible difference to its aims and outcomes, all of which have generated a pointless avalanche of work. As I started work in schools during my training year, GCSE reform was taking place, the first changes to the GCSE syllabus since its introduction in 1988. Those exams in my subject lasted only until 2003, when the exam was changed again, followed by yet further changes in 2010 and then again in 2018. According to this pattern we are thus due for further changes, yet the government has outlined no concrete plans for syllabus reform as yet.

There has been much general discussion about reducing the number of subjects, accompanied by the inevitable Gove-bashing, which remains the favourite sport of most educationalists of a political bent. Everybody joins in the fun, to tedious applause from the stands. There have also been the usual rumblings about “modernising” the curriculum, with talk of essential topics such as “sustainability”, “climate science” and “media and digital literacy”. This was reported on in March, when the government released an interim report on its curriculum review. Given that there has to be notice to make changes from the beginning of when the new syllabus would potentially be taught and that the course lasts two years, it doesn’t look like the GCSE exams will be changing all that soon, but change they will.

To illustrate the monumental pointlessness of these reforms, let’s take what changes OCR made to the Latin GCSE in 2018. The biggest change they made was to switch from 4 exams to 3, which was something of a blessing. In place of the two language exams, they reduced this to one, making it 50% of the total marks instead of two exams worth 25%. In a quite remarkable display of collective inertia, they more or less took the two prior exams and turned them into one, which will explain to younger teachers why the exam is divided into Section A and Section B, with the two halves having absolutely no content linking them: the current exam is quite literally two exams glued together. Yes, it’s that pathetic. In the literature, they did little to nothing more than switching around the 8 and 10 mark questions: the 8-marker used to be the mini-essay, the 10-marker used to be the extended style question, whereas now it’s the other way around. That was pretty much it. One other thing they did was to make it possible to study both verse or both prose texts, which to this day I suspect was actually an error on their part: the examinations for these options are scheduled on the same day at the same time, and I don’t think the exam Board would have actually planned it like that. Most schools, I think, don’t even realise that it’s possible: as a classroom teacher, I certainly didn’t, until it was pointed out to me by David Carter when I interviewed him for my podcast.

So, we wait with bated breath for the latest “reforms”, curious as to whether they will actually reform anything or whether they will be the usual pointless jiggling that necessitates nothing more than teachers getting their heads around a new set of criteria and re-writing all their resources in line with the new plan. No doubt the board will tweak the vocabulary list, offering teachers the exciting opportunity to edit every single quiz and every single test they have written, as well as to check every single resource that they have created in order to verify whether it includes any of the words that have been removed or added. I hate to be that person, but in all honesty – what is the point? The changes to date have always been immaterial, resulting in nothing but more work for an already-beleaguered profession, which is losing its members in droves. I fail to see how any of the impending changes are likely to be any different.