Today I saw this tweet.

If this tweet was intended as a self-depreciating ironic statement, then perhaps what I am about to say should not be directed at the author. But if it is meant as a passive aggressive jibe at "traditional" teachers, then I have a few things to retort.

My first issue with the whole thread is that the main argument is that traditional teachers fall for confirmation bias, actively seeking out research, blogs, books that confirm their beliefs. Whilst this is almost certainly true, we are all susceptible to confirmation bias, and this particular attack would be just as well placed at the "progressive" educator. Everything that is said could easily be turned on to the other side of the debate.

On top of this, by drawing comparisons to outlandish ideas, the author is heavily implying that "traditional" teachers are stupid, and will believe anything they read. Obviously, devoid of any critical thinking skills, and unable to make judgements for themselves 

Throughout this I am going to stereotype the progressive educator as the author has stereotyped traditionalists, to draw certain parallels between the arguments. I am not intending to say that all "progressives" are like this, just as I am willing to admit that there are "traditionalists" as described. My main point is to say that every attack that has been made against the "traditional" teacher could equally be made against the "progressive" teacher, and as such, show that the arguments given are not logical. Despite being a more traditional teacher myself, I think that the variety of experiences that students receive in school are important, and having a mixture of pedagogies across teachers in beneficial for the system as a whole.

Lazy teaching

My argument would be that an excellent teacher-led classroom (which is what I am assuming the author means by traditional, as they later refer to lectures) involves just as much (if not more) planning than a student centered one as the teacher has to carefully craft examples and explanations, and think deeply about the sequence of the curriculum. In a student centered classroom, the teacher can plan an activity without any of this extra thought (necessarily). Similarly, in the classroom, the progressive teacher can allow students to work in their groups, not being actively involved, whereas the traditional teacher is questioning students, checking work and giving feedback on the spot, and marking work.

Of course, the reality is that on both sides of the spectrum there are lazy teachers and there are those who work incredibly hard to give their students the best education they can (within their belief system). Laziness is not an inherent property of a traditional method to education, but rather one of human kind. 

Lecture is the best way to teach

This is like saying that student-centered approaches are rubbish because teachers just let the kids do what they want. It is a lazy stereotype of a methodology. Done well, either methodology is far superior to the other done poorly.

Homework

That is ignoring the "Being insane" comment that is obviously trying to ruffle some feathers.

Never change

But the real issue here is that traditionalists are opposed to change. Many of the "traditional" teachers I know were trained in "progressive" methodologies, and told that too much teacher talk was bad, to use VAK, that you had to be active to learn, etc. And many of these people, myself included, have changed what they believe based on new information. To say they are not open to change goes against the fact that they have changed to become who you say cannot change. A true logical contradiction.

Of course, again, there are those who are set in their ways, and have done this just because they were shown that way. But, again, this can just as easily be said of the "progressive" teachers who are just doing what they are told.

EduCelebs?

This is the one point where the tweeter accepts there is a problem on both sides. Anyone who pushes an agenda at the expense of others, or worse, the children we teach, is an issue in my opinion, no matter where they fall on the spectrum of pedagogy. But again, the jibe with saying that "traditionalists can be worse" is clearly implying that one end is of lower quality

If this was meant as a bit of fun (which I presume it must be), then perhaps I have overreacted. Perhaps I am lacking a sense of humour about this. But as somebody who still hears people saying that we should not tell kids stuff, I think this type of material is dangerous, as some will interpret as "traditional is bad", falling, ironically, into their own confirmation bias

Wholesome Leadership by Tom Rees is a whole approach to school leadership. It is based around the model of the heart, the head, the hands and the health of school leaders, and goes into detail as to what successful leaders in schools do in each of these categories.

Throughout the book, Rees tells personal stories of how he has developed as a leader in the different aspects, as well as giving specific examples of his experiences. This personal touch really helps the book feel more authentic, as you can tell it is written by somebody who has lived these experiences. This is balanced nicely by the interviews with others who are (or have been) involved in leadership in education, each giving their own perspective on one of the aspects of the Wholesome Leadership model.

Before delving into the nitty gritty, Rees shares a handy planning tool, which he calls the Five Fives, for managing change, a big part of being a school leader. Throughout the book he refers back to this tool, providing a template at the end of each chapter to encourage leaders to engage in planning their changes. 

Also at the end of each chapter are a series of reflection questions for leaders to use to ascertain what areas they would like to work on in their leadership/school. Combining these with the Five Fives planning tool is an excellent way for leaders to take action after reading the chapter.

Illustrated by Oliver Caviglioli, the visuals add to the whole experience of the book. Each chapter starts with a summary of key quotes which gives the reader a nice taster of what is to come. The highlight of the visuals are the WalkThrus for Learning Walks, Appraisal, CAP Meetings and Review Mornings.

Each of the four parts of the Heart, Head, Hands and Health model is broken into 3 linked chapters. Although it is an easy book to read all the way through, it is also designed so you can jump to a particular chapter that you are interested in. I can see myself popping back to chapters on a regular basis to reacquaint myself with the ideas, now that I have read the whole thing.

I have created a summary document of the book. The image is below, but you can find the PDF version here, which can be printed up to A2 (it also works pretty well in A3). Some more details on each chapter are below that.