Why MATs don’t have to be a bad thing

When I started teaching, I applied for a position at an academy.  After looking around and talking to some of the staff and students, I was won over and, when I started there as an NQT, I had no regrets.  However, it’s disconcerting to think back to all of the warnings I was given by colleagues in my placement schools, on twitter and in my social groups.  Even more worrying was the reaction I got from teachers at teachmeets in the area, where I felt I had to defend my choice of school.  At this point, it was clear that there was a lack of trust towards academies and I feel that this is now extended to multi-academy trusts (MATs).

Partially, this could be due to a fear of the unknown, since colleagues who have been working outside of MATs might be unaware of what working in a MAT is like.  However, when you think about the stereotype of a MAT that’s common amongst teachers, it’s easy to see that there are monsters in the deep (whether they be the dubious dealings of leaders on luxurious salaries, or the perception of a corporate approach where schools become little more than clones).  Yet, there is a lack of coverage of how a MAT might have benefit for students or staff, thus impacting the views of the few teachers who might have been interested.

These ideas about MATs are also reflected in social media.  Recently, I polled 1,228 tweeting teachers on their opinion of working for a MAT and 51% of them  said that they’d feel unhappy with it, with 39% seeing it as a positive thing and 10% having a more nuanced view.  The comments that followed this up suggested that views were based largely on personal experience, with a dislike for ‘chains’ that constrict teacher autonomy and an emphasis on the the idea that it’s leadership that matters.  In this sense, a MAT school is no different from any other school: strong, consistent leaders who put their students and staff first create an environment that teachers enjoy being a part of.  One teacher (Kate, who tweets at @AlwaysBeMarking) even highlighted how different large MATs can be, as she’d had experience with both a ‘living nightmare’ of a place to work versus the ‘supportive partner’ she works with now.  

I worked in a academy that started to support other schools in difficult circumstances, as well as starting its own primary to cater for a boost in new housing.  From this, a small MAT grew where schools kept their own identities but worked together to do the right thing by their students and staff.  Since then, I’ve moved to another school in the MAT and the trust has evolved to become a more collaborative group.

Staff benefit hugely from being part of this MAT: as a new Director of English, I had support from the trust leadership team for two days a week.  This meant that I had an opportunity to develop as a leader, rather than drown in an endless list of jobs to do.  Similarly, staff are also able to complete various qualifications through opportunities created by being part of the trust.  However, it isn’t just about developing staff who are hoping to lead.  Being part of the trust means that it’s easy to collaborate, as we can share resources and come together for external training/speakers at cross-trust meetings or training days.  It’s also a great way for staff to see excellent practice in other schools; this has been particularly useful for the media staff I line-manage, who have benefitted from peer observations across two schools instead of just one.

Students are also able to enjoy the benefits of the above, as well as making the most of additional subject expertise across several schools- a priority when the teacher recruitment crisis looks set to get worse.  In English, it’s meant that I’ve been able to utilise specialists to deliver targeted interventions.  In Science, A Level students have been able to access experts for the topics they study. 

However, the really amazing thing about the MAT I work in with is its focus on doing the right thing by staff and students.  This even boils down to the CEO working closely with the unions when developing our workload charter.  Overall, this means that the well-being of staff is valued, and the impact it has on students is acknowledged.

I realise that my experience with a MAT isn’t comparable to other trusts, not by far.  But I also know that it isn’t the only trust effectively capitalising on the MAT model to best support staff and students.  The stereotype of a ‘typical MAT school’ needs to be challenged; nobody should be made to feel they need to defend working in one.  Instead, we should be allowed to feel proud.

The Importance of Subject-Specific CPD

Imagine walking into a hall of around 100 students, with some who have just started school and others who are near the end of their academic journey.  Perhaps you plan to read out the content of a PowerPoint.  Or maybe you will engage them all with a game of table tennis with students?

Either way, how confident are you that you would be able to deliver a lesson that would effectively meet the learning needs of such a wide range of ages and abilities?  I certainly wouldn’t be, and the same would go for delivering a whole-staff training session that would effectively meet the needs of staff who are at different points in their career and approach their teaching in different ways.

This is one reason why I feel CPD on a whole-school level is problematic.  Every single teacher should be able to leave one of these sessions feeling that they have had time to think and reflect in order to improve the learning of their students.  Instead, many leave with a list of strategies that they’ve already tried (and perhaps didn’t work) or aren’t relevant to their classroom.

It is sensible that schools are leaving behind the ‘whole-school CPD’ model, in favour of subject-specific development.  This is vital as the time spent working on specific subjects allows teachers to develop their subject knowledge, support their workload through team-planning and focus on pedagogy/research that is specific to their discipline.  Furthermore, the fact that the training is led by a head of department means that they know their teams and can plan sessions to support the needs of each member of staff in their department.

This being said, it is crucial to train middle leaders if this is to be effective, or we run the risk of department meetings that consist of a list of notices rather than time to enhance the development of our staff.  CPD time should be primarily based in departments, with middle leaders trained in the best ways to train and develop staff.  Part of this also means planning out the focus for a department; we often consider the sequencing and revisiting of knowledge for our students, but the same is true for

our staff.  Activities could involve engaging with research and considering the impact on teaching, reflecting on recent peer observations, reading around a specific text/area of study to develop subject knowledge or even time to read books on teaching and learning.  You could even use videos of teachers in your department to discuss together what effective teaching is for you.

Overall, the main things that could improve CPD for teachers? Smaller class sizes.

Thanks to @teacherthunks , @trudygroskop , @meshishk and @bossymisst for the feedback on twitter!

My Visualiser: Small Camera, Big Impact

When I started to use a visualiser, I was surprised by some of the feedback from students where they saw it as a helpful tool.  One was the fact that I was no longer ‘in the way’ when modelling on the board (it probably doesn’t help that I’m not always great at standing still during delivery); the second was that students felt that my explanations were clearer, as I took more time.

It is true that sitting to model and write does make me slow down a little, mostly as it has made me more aware of how I am delivering the explanations whilst I model.  The summary of effective direct instruction from Barack Rosenshine (2012) was really influential here, as it made it reconsider the importance of making modelling matter.

To start with, this was as simple as me narrating my thought process (taking the effort to slow down and pause as appropriate) and annotating this thought process as I go.  This meant that students had the scaffold of this thought process when they either continued the piece I started or started anew with a different focus.  This was a big shift from the rushed models I’d previously completed on the whiteboard, as being conscious of the limited space meant that I was often restricted to a single paragraph, with limited annotations.

Over time, I also started to replace more of my pre-prepared models with a live version, using the visualiser.  For example, when feeding back after looking at students’ work, I now tend to write model to show students how to get past the misconceptions I identified by modelling those mistakes and the correcting of them.  Again, modelling the thought process has been important here as I’ve had students reflect by asking which questions I asked myself whilst writing that they didn’t ask themselves, before they redraft their original piece.  What I’m aiming to develop is the idea that they shouldn’t ‘just write’ (as is the temptation in exams where time is limited and the required knowledge is substantial); instead, I want to embed the process of ‘write > reflect > repeat’.

As well as modelling the process for written answers (which has proved more successful than the various acronyms I’ve used for analytical paragraphs before), I’ve also used the visualiser to model planning of tasks/writing and the annotation of texts.  I believe that this has supported students’ cognitive load because (as one student mentioned) I’m not ‘getting in the way’ of the explanation/modelling.  Students can look and the board and listen to my narration; they don’t need to be distracted by my physical presence.

Now I am more confident with using the visualiser, I now find that I use it without planning to, which has made it particularly useful when it comes to addressing misconceptions or sharing successes ‘in the moment’ as well as live marking a piece to model effective peer/self assessment.