Leadership of the curriculum
There are a number of things which leaders need to take account of when thinking about the curriculum. The first is that the curriculum is more than subjects on a timetable; the second is that the national curriculum is not a scheme of work and the third is that colleagues need time to plan, to collaborate and to reflect.
‘A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.’
- John C. Maxwell
There are a number of things which leaders need to take account of when thinking about the curriculum. The first is that the curriculum is more than subjects on a timetable; the second is that the national curriculum is not a scheme of work and the third is that colleagues need time to plan, to collaborate and to reflect. The role of leaders is to know what the curriculum is for, how it is constructed and what content is covered. The work of Christine Counsell in unpacking the key questions to be asked is fundamental to supporting leadership of the curriculum. Her blog posts are essential reading for all leaders as they consider the quality and purpose of the curriculum in their settings.[1]
To take the first, namely that the curriculum is more than the subjects on a timetable. Leaders need to know the quality of the content of what is being taught. It is not an easy task to do this with subjects which are not the leaders’ own subject specialisms. This is where they need to trust the subject leaders as specialists and to have conversations with them about what is being taught and the rationale for it being included. This should not be ad hoc. It is one of the most important aspects of quality assurance which will ensure that pupils receive their entitlement to a broad, rich offer. Tom Boulter, deputy head for curriculum has written about the importance of taking a close interest in the detail of the curriculum. ‘We run meetings three times each year between myself, faculty leadership and the SLT link for that area. One of these meetings is dedicated entirely to curriculum at KS3, and involves listening to and discussing the rationale for the specific content being delivered, and the resources provided to students and teachers. My view is that, whilst in the past SLT have not often tended to be involved in discussion of the detail, it’s actually a core responsibility of any senior team. If you are a senior leader in a school, particularly with any curriculum responsibility, the day-to-day content being taught in all subjects should be high on your list of priorities to give your attention; it’s fundamental to your job.’[2] This is echoed by John Tomsett who asks his subject leaders the following question: ‘What are the specific hallmarks of pedagogy in your subject?’[3] This encourages colleagues to go beyond the generic, to the specifics within their subjects.
The second is that the national curriculum is not a scheme of work. It might be a surprising observation, but too many conversations about overall planning and purpose are answered refer back to the national curriculum as though it is the actual scheme for what should be taught. It is the minimum content to be covered and it needs to be translated into meaningful, demanding schemes to bring the subject alive.
The third element relating to planning is the most important here. There is never enough time. So given that, what should leaders do to create the space for proper curriculum thinking and planning to take place? Well the first is to recognise that not everything can or should be done. It is better to start with fewer topics and to do these well and build on them over time. To take an example, if the school has recognised that it has not offered sufficient geography at key stage 2, in addressing this, why not take one area eg India which is often taught in year 3 and plan and for the first time round, teach this to all year groups in key stage 2? Then in the next round to take another topic and do the same. By the time the original year 3s have arrived in year 6, there will be new topics and so they will not be repeating what they have already done. The value in doing this is that several classes will be doing work on the same plans at the same time. This means that teachers will be able to plan together, share what has gone well and what needs to be tweaked and there will be plenty of examples of pupils’ work to compare. Working in this way means that teacher expertise grows incrementally and is consolidated through conversations with other professionals. This is light years away from teachers working in isolation.
If we are serious about improving the teachers’ subject knowledge beyond English and maths then directed time should be created for this. A number of schools such as Durrington[4] have overhauled their planning time so that it is focused on subject planning and resourcing rather than administration which is done by email and kept to a minimum. At Durrington they have prioritised planning time so that it is subject specific, regular, collaborative and within the context of what is being taught at that time.
Beyond this, in order to create time there needs to be a long hard look at some of the work such as written marking and data collection which does not add to pupils learning. If sensible approaches to marking such as Andrew Percival’s[5] and Clare Sealy’s schools[6] where they take a minimal approach to marking, then this frees up time for thinking about curriculum planning. Working to minimal marking not only saves time for teachers, it is more effective for pupils who have a much clearer idea of what they need to do to improve.
A key thread in this is that teachers should not be planning in isolation. Every teacher with responsibility for a curriculum area should be encouraged to work with others within the school, join subject networks where these are available locally, tap into the expertise of subject specialists within a MAT if they are part of one, engage with the subject communities on Twitter and belong to the relevant subject association. Linked to this aim for more collaboration is that subject leaders in secondary schools should have time to gain insights into what pupils have already been taught in their primary schools.
In order for curriculum planning to be effective, leaders need to make sure that planning takes account of the research on effective learning, for example Bjork’s work on ‘desirable difficulties’ which found that if learning is too easy and straightforward it is less likely to be secure in the long term memory. The research is now clear that some activities in classrooms result in better learning and it is important that teachers are aware of the headlines of these and consider how to adjust their practice where appropriate. It is not easy trawling the research and this is why it is important that schools support their colleagues to become members of the Chartered College of Teaching[7] because one of the strands of their work is to make the research available through their website and their termly publication Impact.
Subject specific continuing professional development has been the poor relation compared with generic pedagogic CPD. However, work by Philippa Cordingley at CUREE[8] has found that programmes that unhand teachers’ subject knowledge and/or their ability to teach in specific subjects has a greater impact on pupil outcomes than generic CPD. Again, from the research: ‘while teachers in England rate subject specific or contextualised CPD more highly than generic pedagogic CPD, their leaders are less convinced – and both groups see it as much less common and desirable than do their peers in high performing countries.’ If we know this and we are serious about raising outcomes for all pupils, we need to make sure that it is given sufficient time in schools.
There are no quick fixes for this. Philippa Cordingley and Toby Greany’s work found that many school leaders do work to build a strong professional learning environments and systems for developing depth in content knowledge at the heart of school improvement, as the case studies in the report show. But there is a long way to go to make this practice widespread. ‘Effective leaders use performance review to identify and balance CPD needs for the school as a whole and for individuals. Primary and secondary schools with a strong CPD offer and a focus on how teachers learn through deepening subject knowledge work hard to sustain support and make it systematic, using different kinds of evidence and making sure there is a clear logical connections between analysis of the needs of individual and groups of teachers, school self-evaluation, improvement and CPD activity.’
[1] https://thedignityofthethingblog.wordpress.com/
[2] http://thinkingonlearning.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/improving-curriculum.html
[3] https://johntomsett.com/2018/05/06/this-much-i-know-about-subject-specific-pedagogy/
[4] https://classteaching.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/subject-planning-and-development-sessions/
[5] http://primarypercival.weebly.com/blog/no-written-marking-job-done
[6] https://thirdspacelearning.com/blog/why-my-school-banned-marking-confessions-of-a-primary-headteacher/
Staff Development
This is what John Tomsett has to say about staff development: ‘In the last six years it has become plain to me that the quality of teacher learning is central to putting staff first. Any teacher, at any stage of his or her career, has to accept, continuously, the professional obligation to improve his or her teaching…
This is what John Tomsett has to say about staff development[1]: ‘In the last six years it has become plain to me that the quality of teacher learning is central to putting staff first. Any teacher, at any stage of his or her career, has to accept, continuously, the professional obligation to improve his or her teaching. Period. And once the teacher has accepted that obligation, the school has to accept the responsibility of providing the very best teacher learning opportunities. School leaders cannot just wish teachers to improve their teaching. School leaders have to put their staff’s learning needs first.’
John also points out that staff learning needs to be aligned with the school’s performance management system. Now the default practice in much of the sector is for the performance management systems to be underpinned by data. The intelligent way to use data is to analyse the results of the public tests, or large scale comparative judgement sessions, in order to develop some hypotheses about what needs to be done to improve outcomes. But this reliance on data is often taken too far. This happens when internally generated school data is used for pay awards. The inherent flaw is that school internal data is neither valid nor reliable. If this is the case, why would it be used as part of a performance management process?
This is what happens in many parts of the sector: targets are agreed, which usually relate to whole school priorities, departmental or phase priorities and the performance of pupils in individual classes. It is the last which is the hardest to get right. Why is this? Well too often, the indicators for making judgements are based on numbers. So, what is the problem with numbers? Well, these numbers usually relate to the attainment and progress which pupils in a group or class have made. But what do the numbers signify and what are they based on? Any number is only a symbol for what a child knows, understands and can do. And a number cannot capture the whole picture of a child’s achievement. The further problem with numbers is that they are often driven by tracking systems. As teachers go through the curriculum with their pupils, they are often expected to track their progress on the system. The goal is to improve the numbers or turn the children ‘green’ as proof of progress. Yet this takes no account of the complexity of learning, nor of the authentic progress pupils might have made, nor of the gaps which remain to be filled.
A further problem with linking performance management to data, this time external data such as SATS or examination results at key stage 4 and key stage 5 is that the results which pupils achieve are not solely down to an individual teacher. At the end of Year 6 pupils will have had at least six years of schooling and the impact of these years should not solely be used to judge a Year 6 teacher’s performance. There are too many external factors in how well pupils do at the end of year 6 to say that one teacher is responsible, and that their pay should be contingent on this. And when it comes to secondary, the performance management targets based on Key Stage 2 SATS results are deeply flawed. How can a teacher in humanities or arts and design technology be held to account for baseline data which are not related in any way to their subjects? Bonkers.
If we are not going to rely on internally generated school data as the basis for performance what might we do instead? To draw on John Tomsett’s work again. As he argues ‘school structures which have informed leaders of teacher learning, and time for teachers to work on improving practice, also require coherence with a school’s performance management system. A feature of our mature, coherent model of performance development and our related CPD programme is our Disciplined Inquiry objective. It is the only objective in our Performance Development. All teachers and teaching assistants – some 120+ colleagues – identify a feature of their practice which they would like to develop and then they evaluate that development of their practice against its impact upon their students’ performance. They are expertly trained in the whole process by colleagues from our Research School who introduce colleagues to, amongst other things, interventions, treatment groups, control groups and effect sizes. They have time to complete their inquiry – we call it their Inquiry Question, or IQ for short – and at the end of the year they write it up on an A3 pro forma.’
This way of working chimes with Philippa Cordingley’s ‘Pockets of Excellence – Beacon or Blindspot?’summarising her research in schools attempting to scale up pockets of high quality practice. Philippa comes to some very interesting conclusions - that the scaling up of excellent practice is subtle and complex. The nub of the paradox appears to be that many school leaders attempt to gain momentum by providing support for teachers. A good thing in itself, but when CPD is provided by leaders and positioned as an executive role, what is often missing is the chance to understand, experiment with, and explore the underpinning rationale of the practice in the same way. When CPD is top down, middle leaders often miss out on developing their learning leadership through working out how to facilitate the learning of their colleagues.
'By contrast, 'exceptional' schools placed a great emphasis on building a shared understanding of the school’s model of pedagogy and its underpinning rationale. By ensuring that all development focused on identifying and removing barriers to learning and building a shared model of and language for teaching and learning, the extensive monitoring in 'exceptional' schools worked to build coherence for learners and develop a commitment to collective efficacy.'
In the exceptional schools the emphasis was on 'highly professionalised CPDL (Continuing Professional Development and Learning), constructed as a professional and accountable partnership between leaders and teachers. Mentors, facilitators and coaches were trained and the effect of their support on colleagues and on their pupils was evaluated. These trained facilitators of professional learning were distributed across all levels of leadership.'
It is this sort of endeavour, rich, professionally rewarding that improves standards. As David Weston of the Teacher Development Trust says, ‘If we are going to have more schools where teachers keep improving, we need to make staff learning just as much of a priority as student learning.’
[1] Tomsett, J, Uttley J (2020) Putting Staff First: John Catt Educational
Fewer things in greater depth
‘Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction.’ E. F. Schumacher
‘Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction.’
- E. F. Schumacher
Thoughtful leaders working to create the conditions for high challenge and low threat know that in order to make a difference they have to focus on fewer things in greater depth. This is incredibly difficult in schools which have intense schedules, unexpected challenges and sometimes crises. But this is no different from any other profession or business. Stuff sometimes gets in the way. That’s how life is. But while these are inescapable facts of life and work top leaders keep their heads clear of unnecessary stuff and keep their eyes on the ball. They know the core business of what they are about and they keep their eye on the main goal.
Einstein said that everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. Top leaders invest time in thinking and talking about what the main purpose of their work is. They describe the conditions they want themselves and others to work in and the core results they want to see. So, this is linked to two main things: the conditions in which we work and the main work to be done.
Top leaders make sure that the conditions are right to achieve the goals agreed. Conditions are the space both physical and psychological in which the work takes place. To take the physical first. They know that necessary conditions mean order and simplicity. Overcrowded desks, overcrowded room with stuff which does not serve the core purpose are a distraction. They start by taking a hard look at their surroundings. This is not about high levels of spend on beautiful buildings and expensive gadgets. It’s about the principles of design which value clarity and grace over disorder and chaos. They start with themselves and their own workspace. They take a hard look at everything in their room and ask themselves, ’Is this fit for purpose? what is it doing here? where did I last use it? How likely am I to use it again? ‘And anything which does not fit, goes either in the skip, or out of sight. Clear workspaces support clear thinking. Then they take a look at the wider school, the corridors, the shared spaces, the hall, and also behind the scenes. They make sure that there is no unnecessary stuff anywhere. So, none of the remnants from last year’s show lying gathering dust at the side of the stage. Beyond a health and safety hazard this sends out the message that clarity and order don't matter.
They encourage colleagues to do the same exercise in their classrooms and workspaces. Why is stuff on the floor? Why are those old resources gathering dust? They are getting in the way of the important stuff which needs both a physical and mental spring clean.
This is not about some regimented cold regime. It is about sending a clear message to ourselves, our colleagues and our subconscious that clarity and simplicity matter. We can get attached to things. But if we are never likely to use them again, why are we keeping them? Anyone who has done this work whether at home or work and has loaded stuff into a skip or a rubbish bin will know the deep satisfaction which comes from getting rid of unnecessary stuff.
Importantly however, once leaders have done this for themselves and they encourage others to do the same. This can’t be forced, people have to engage with it willingly, but they will understand the difference it makes when they have done it. We feel lighter, more energetic and have more clarity and optimism. But this doesn't all have to be done by one individual on their own. Top leaders who think this is important give time for this to be done on a regular basis. And they make it clear that its ok to get students involved as well. Many hands make light work and the role of students in keeping classrooms and workspaces fit for purpose is an important lesson for their own lives. Thoughtful leaders know how to make this work rewarding and satisfying. Once the big clear out has happened, it is much easier to keep on top of things. It is easier to notice when things are going astray, getting messy and sorting them quickly. It is harder to do this against an already messy backdrop. The bottom line here is to consider having fewer things and making good use of the things we do. And for those worried about never being able to replace the things they throw away accidentally, well it is always possible to replace them and most of them can be found on the internet.
When it comes to the psychological as opposed to the physical aspects of this way of working - fewer things in greater depth, the same principles apply. Thinking about organising meetings, it is worth considering Mark Zuckerberg’s two principles for meetings – the papers for discussion circulated in advance and asking the question at the start of each meeting - are we here to have a discussion or make a decision? That sorts the wood from the trees. This way of working means there is more chance of being consistent in making sure that the top priorities for school improvement are at the top of every agenda. The admin stuff takes second place. Because the admin always gets done, but it should never trump the hard stuff of keeping the improvement priorities at the forefront of the business. And this applies to any business, not just education. Those companies and organisations which thrive keep the main thing the main thing. They allow no distractions. They make sure ask questions at the start of a meeting - what difference have we made to learning or the school improvement priorities since we last met? And leaders start with themselves. Because it is always modelled from the top. What they know is that the ease and grace and deep satisfaction that comes from working in this way is worth it. It is invigorating, exciting and is much, much easier to see the work both as it is achieved and the pathway ahead.
Careful curiosity
‘We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.’ Walt Disney
‘We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.’
- Walt Disney
When we go back to basics and to questioning everything, there is a danger that we might throw out good stuff as well as the dross. To overcome this, we need to undertake this work through the lens of careful curiosity. The aim is to create a distance where we can consider things dispassionately and truly consider what they might contribute in a way that makes sure that we really do sort the wheat from the chaff.
There are a number of strands to the idea of careful curiosity. The first is to keep in mind what we are trying to achieve: to cut back on anything that gets in the way or takes up time from our core business. This means taking our time, because if we rush then we might just prune back things that would actually add value. We might slash too much, when actually what is needed is less hacking and more nuanced pruning back.
To take some examples, the first from the classroom. Let’s suppose that we are considering the amount of time it takes to put up display boards taking to and maintain in our classrooms and corridors. We might then ask questions about this through the lens of careful curiosity. The first stage is to consider the purpose of classroom displays. Why do we actually have them? Now, how we answer the questions will determine what we do next. If the answers are on the lines because we have always had them, because we are expected to, because they make the classroom look pretty, then those answers are not getting to the heart of the question. They are not getting to the absolute rationale for them as they are just superficial reasons. And the question ‘why’ needs to be asked again, until we are absolutely crystal clear about why we have them, the purpose they serve and the gains they make to pupils’ learning. So, the answers might go like this: ‘We want to showcase pupils’ work.’ ‘We want to share some of the images and artefacts that relate to this subject or topic.’ ‘ We don’t like blank space.’ ‘We want something simple, time efficient that adds to pupils learning.’ ‘We don’t want anything on our walls.’ To which further questions might pose the following:
‘Will we showcase all pupils’ work, or just some?’ If so, how will we manage this? We could use examples from work to praise and share? In which case, does the time taken warrant the impact? It might do, but not necessarily. How are we making sure that these will be used for learning rather than just decoration?
What this process does is to help us to be more intentional about what we are considering cutting back and why. Instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater we take time to consider the reasons for keeping or losing something. This takes us to a deeper space, we are far more likely to use the materials on the boards purposefully, than if they are just there as a matter of habit or to cover up blank space. There might also be a case for having just one image or big word, or nothing to begin with and then adding to the imagery in a careful way over time. The big difference is that we are being intentional about this activity and are crystal clear about what its purpose is meant to be, in terms of pupils’ learning.
Another example might be staff meetings in primary and department or faculty meetings in secondary. The same process applies - why do we have them? What are they meant to achieve? What would happen if we didn’t have them? What is currently on the agenda? Do we have an agenda? Does the meeting focus on the main priority of adding value to learning? Again, when we ask the question why do we have these meetings, these might be some of the responses: ‘We have staff meetings because we have always had them’ in which case the further questions might be: ‘Why? How do we know they are helpful? ‘We use them to catch up with one another.’ Are there other ways of doing this?’ ‘We use them for admin.’ Could this be done through an email? ‘No idea, they are a waste of time.’ ‘Why and who have we raised this with?
Then, to take an example for governing body meetings. What sort of information do governors need about standards? If the response is progress data on a spreadsheet, then we need to ask ‘Is it valid and is it reliable? How do we know?’ Internally generated data from most commercial tracking systems do not present an accurate picture of standards. This is because they are based on levels (even if the term levels is not used) rather than viewing the curriculum itself as the progression model. It might be a more productive question to ask whether governors would find it more helpful to have samples of pupils’ work from across year groups and prior starting points, in order to get a clearer purchase about standards achieved by pupils currently in the school.
The purpose of careful curiosity is to ask questions to make sure that we are able to extract value from anything we are doing. Through a process of careful curiosity, we allow ourselves to take time to think through and justify why we are doing what we are doing. We might come to completely different conclusions, that doesn’t matter, it is the process of thinking through our reasons that is the point.
And of course, if we decide to keep going with what we have already, this is good. What we have done is to take our practice off the shelf, given it a good dusting and considered carefully why we have it in our arsenal. We all have an obligation to ask why - if we think that something is a waste of time, we should ask why it takes place. Done in the spirit of careful curiosity this can be both respectful and challenging. It is not a crime to ask why. The process itself is renewing and refreshing. ‘The disciplined pursuit of less.’
Done is better than perfect
‘Done is better than perfect. I have tried to embrace this motto and let go of unattainable standards. Aiming for perfection causes frustration at best and paralysis at worst.’ Sheryl Sandberg
‘Done is better than perfect. I have tried to embrace this motto and let go of unattainable standards. Aiming for perfection causes frustration at best and paralysis at worst.’
- Sheryl Sandberg
The pursuit of perfection is exhausting. And the reason is that perfection does not exist. As Plato pointed out, the real world is a reflection of the ideal world. And for those of us who need a reminder, we live in the real world.
As we get back on track, we need to remind ourselves that done is better than perfect. The endless fiddling to get something absolutely precise and spot on is a waste of time. Newspaper editors routinely tell rookie reporters and contributors that it is better to meet a deadline with less than a final polish, than to get it in late. The publication must go out. So, time to be less precious.
What does this mean for schools? It means an absolute focus on the things that really matter - the planning and thinking about how a lesson is going to go, the kinds of stimulus, the questions, the work we want students to do. And checking that they have done it and letting them know what they need to do to improve. We need to remember that the tail shouldn’t be wagging the dog. We need to ask hard questions such as - ’Is this moving learning on? If it isn't why are we doing it?’
We all need to check how we are spending our time. Not just during lessons but afterwards. We need to find and share the legitimate short cuts for working efficiently and for focusing on the important stuff like planning. We need to be alert to whether we are taking an inordinate amount of time on things which are not improving learning.
We need to have an overall picture of what is going on in classrooms. We shouldn’t need data drops every couple of weeks to tell us what we should already know. We need to continually ask questions about how things can be made to work more simply and more efficiently. We should be mindful of the work life balance and know that the pursuit of perfection gets in the way of healthy, honest work.
In the wider management of school settings, sensible leaders, mindful both of high challenge and low threat and of a clear understanding of done is better than perfect, apply this to the way they run meetings, communicate with parents and analyse the impact of their work. In thinking about this, they recognise that the work never feels as though it is done. They come to terms with this and accept that enough is enough. This not only makes processes more efficient but also frees up space for thinking about the big picture of direction of travel, ethos and new possibilities.
Some leaders, when reporting to the governing body, for example, do not reproduce information that is already available. They summarise the processes and actions and the impact of these through brief headlines. They are disciplined about keeping the main thing the main thing. They are relentless in asking themselves and the governing body whose role is to challenge and support them about the impact of their actions being top of the agenda. Admin is dealt with under any other business, rather than being at the top of the agenda.
Getting things done trumps getting them perfect.
Making the case for less
We find it hard to throw things away: to trim, to prune back to the essential. There are many reasons for this. Sometimes we just don’t notice how things have piled up. We just get accustomed to there being more and more; sometimes we hang on to stuff in case it comes in useful and sometimes it can all feel too much to try and sort out what’s still needed from what can be thrown away.
We find it hard to throw things away: to trim, to prune back to the essential. There are many reasons for this. Sometimes we just don’t notice how things have piled up. We just get accustomed to there being more and more; sometimes we hang on to stuff in case it comes in useful and sometimes it can all feel too much to try and sort out what’s still needed from what can be thrown away.
However, we cannot just keep adding more and more to our work schedules, otherwise we will go under. But it takes bravery and discipline to ask ourselves, do we really need this? What would happen if we got rid of it? And yet if we want to create the time and space to focus on the important work, we need to roll up our sleeves and do some metaphorical cleaning out of the attics.
Our guiding principle for this work might be William Morris, who said that we should have nothing in our homes unless we know it to be useful or believe to be beautiful: when we place this idea within our work context we might ask ourselves whether the systems and the resources and the materials we are working with, really are useful? And as for beauty: this does not mean that we decorate our worksheets with sparkly butterflies, but instead ask ourselves whether they are fit for purpose: whether they are really clear and carefully designed to make sure that pupils can really learn from them.
The idea of making the case for less has a long pedigree in academic and management literature. Vilfredo Pareto, Professor of Political Economy at Lausanne discovered and described the '80:20' effect, now known as the Pareto Principle. Pareto’s work was in analysing wealth and income distribution trends in nineteenth-century England and he discovered that broadly 20 percent of the people owned 80 percent of the wealth. This insight was developed later by others, such as Joseph Juran, the quality improvement expert who developed ‘Total Quality Management’. Juran refined and developed Pareto's theories to make them applicable in business and management. Juran realised that organisations and people tend to expand activities, materials, and stuff of all sorts, over time, and all of this 'stuff' becomes expensive and cumbersome to keep. He took the Pareto Principle – the top 20% of any country’s population accounts for 80% of its economy – and translated it into business. He developed the Juran Trilogy that addressed the planning, control and improvement of quality in products. While Juran’s focus was on wasteful processes in manufacturing, the principles provide insights into how we go about our work in education. We might ask ourselves a question such as: ‘What is the 20% of our work which has 80% of the impact?’ Or ‘What is the impact of the work we do outside the classroom? Does all of it have real impact? How do we know?’
An unexpected organisational guru for this field is Marie Kondo. This might be surprising as she is known for her advice on decluttering our homes. However, as with Pareto and Juran, there are some insights that might be applied to our work. Kondo says ‘My criterion for deciding to keep an item is that we should feel a thrill of joy when we touch it.’ Now ‘joy’ might not be the first thing that comes to mind when we are thinking about our work and the things we use to get that work done. However, if we unpick it, we might ask ourselves questions such as: ‘Is this the most professional way to go about this? Do I feel a deep sense of satisfaction with these power points and resources that I am offering my pupils? Are they the best and how do I know?’ And when we are able to answer yes to these, then we tap into a professional pride, which on Kondo’s terms might be called joy.
She has some interesting things to say about why so many of us allow ourselves to be surrounded by disorder. Kondo argues that visible mess hel distracts us from the true source of the disorder - in other words, we might have so much paperwork to complete that we forget to ask ourselves why we are doing this and who it is for. She goes on to say that there are usually two reasons for our reluctance to let something go: an attachment to the past or a fear for the future. And translated into a school context, this might be ‘Well we have always done it this way’ or ‘What will happen if we change our policy from marking every piece of work to whole class marking?’ The prospect facing up to the fact that we might need to do things differently and this can take many of us out of our comfort zones.
We need a radical approach to ‘spring cleaning’ many of the things we do in education. This involves taking a close look at the number of meetings we have, to the resources we source and develop and to the way we go about teaching. We cannot afford to hang on to things that no longer serve our purpose. As Kondo says about our homes: ‘Can you truthfully say that you treasure something buried so deeply in a closet or drawer that you have forgotten its existence? If things had feelings, they would certainly not be happy. Free them from the prison to which you have relegated them. Help them leave that deserted isle to which you have exiled them.’
When we release ourselves from some of the things that are getting in the way of cracking on with our best work, work which has impact, it is liberating.
Latest book: Back on Track