I was asked to give my views on the Sutton Trust’s report ‘What makes great teaching?’ for a newspaper this week. This is the original text:
It is a useful summary if you are interested in teacher professional development and have not come across the research before. The six components of ‘great teaching’ highlighted should not be surprising yet I cannot help but feel that the nuance will get lost and the paper makes this mistake amid all its careful considerations. It cites Deborah Stipek’s research on grouping students by ability and states that such practices are ineffective. Yet, when examined in detail, Stipek’s paper does not suggest that grouping by ability is wrong but rather it is the teacher’s perception of the group that leads to varied results, especially for students in low ability groups. If the professional training suggested at the end of the paper is adopted, it would disturb teacher perceptions and therefore the students in these ability grouped classes would be taught appropriately and make expected progress.
This inconsistency does not mean a rejection of the recommendations. On the contrary, I hope it is rightly received as a mechanism to ask some serious questions about student learning and teacher professional development in all schools. My challenge to the Sutton Trust and the academic contributors is to be better ‘choice architects’. Yes, they do indeed point to ways forward for schools and leadership teams yet why not go one step further by making the research base of the paper available for free so schools can improve their professional development programmes? If they did this, they would remove a substantive barrier to teacher professional development in schools and fulfil the ‘quick win’ they identify at the end on the necessity to spread awareness of research on effective pedagogy. I am sure that this action would go some way to reducing the Sutton Trust’s identified gap of a year’s learning between poorer students with effective teachers and those with poorly performing teachers.