I am just back from ResearchED Canberra and I returned with such enthusiasm, ready to share my learning with my colleagues and eager to make some changes within my own classroom. It was easy to mistake my day of learning in Canberra as evidence that all is well with education. But that bubble was abruptly burst while awaiting my flight home on Sunday. And, to be honest, I deserved it because I opened my Facebook app.

I know what goes on in Facebook teacher land. I have found myself in the odd battle on these teacher pages before, unable to control my hand from angrily typing out a diplomatic response that will ultimately get me nowhere. But perhaps a teacher might read it and be swayed away from spending the whole day making paper aeroplanes (yes, I have seen that announced with pride).

There are a lot of great things going on in education at the moment, but there is also a lot going on that I find deeply concerning and frustrating. The backlash and bastardisation (I looked for a more aggressive word but couldn’t find one) of explicit instruction has meant that any teacher looking at improving their instruction and knowledge should be blocked from any facebook access. But I guess this is the concerning part, most teachers would have a facebook account and most of their algorithms would steer them towards teacher grievance pages.

When Purpleturtle3085 declares that reading recovery is the absolute pinnacle of reading instruction and explicit instruction via slides is literally causing death to students, who would listen? Well a lot of them actually, such as Pineapplesurprise89 and Angryraccoon560, just to name a couple.

A few months ago, I announced by the way of substack that I was resigning from getting into arguments with strangers on Facebook. I lied.

I am going out on a limb here and assuming that there is no rehab for my unfortunate habit, so once again, I find myself looking towards Substack as an outlet for my constant Facebook-fuelled frustration. I will respond to a few of the comments that have annoyed me most over the last week or so.

As my list was so large, I had to create a selection criteria, a triage of sorts, to determine which comments would be included.

1. I had seen the comment appear more than once on Facebook.

2. I developed a rash while reading it.

I am going to preface this with a reminder that I have spent a significant amount of my career supporting other educators. I continue to offer my own time, free of charge, to assist struggling teachers, many of whom I have never met in real life and who contact me through social media.

I have complete empathy for the educational disaster that many teachers find themselves in as they attempt to unlearn approaches that were sold to them as best practice. Many teachers are drowning in schools with little support or guidance. So, whilst I have genuine compassion for teachers who have been sold a version of the profession that should have never existed, I am far more concerned about the harmful advice and views being widely spread on facebook (and other social media outlets).

The attitudes of some teachers who continue to battle against any change, desiring full autonomy to choose the assessment and instruction with which they are comfortable, is beyond aggravating.

There are real students in those classrooms. Their chance to learn to read, or to learn their number facts are behind those classroom walls. What goes on during those hours of the school day matters deeply.

Dear facebook teacher,

“I remember when teaching was fun”

Yes, I am not surprised. Humans often dream about the good old days, recounting past times as simpler, more enjoyable and less complicated. Social media is full of these kinds of comparisons, usually juxtaposed with a picture showing what is considered to be an idyllic time versus now, which is almost always represented as more stressful, less fulfilling, and more dangerous. The funny thing is that in twenty years from now, today will probably be referred to as the good old days. Humans tend to look back on time with rose-coloured glasses. The past feels nostalgic, familiar, and often sadly missed.

Change can be scary, and being out of your comfort zone can be incredibly uncomfortable. But unlike your own personal life where you might long for things such as childhood friends, past television shows, and the street you grew up on, teaching is not like that. You can’t let nostalgia and comfort guide your instruction. Teaching is NOT a profession that should be guided by what feels good, warm, familiar, and fun. Fun does not equate to learning, so perhaps a question to reflect on might be, “Am I teaching to provide fun or learning?” Now might be a good time to mention that students do find learning fun. They’re not suffering by learning without paper mache. It feels great to learn something new, to feel capable and clever. Students love that! They don’t need bells and whistles to be engaged. They need to learn.

Explicit instruction can be tiring, so yes, I would agree that past practices were simpler and consequently can be remembered positively. Teachers in the past have been able to plan whatever they like. I have seen maths lessons that consisted of a YouTube video and Twinkl worksheets containing one, two, and three-star activities to address differentiation. I have seen reading lessons that involved retrieving six pre-made activities from the cupboard and then assigning rotating groups. Yes, simpler times with less planning, where the knowledge of the teacher was entirely optional.

I can already hear the cries of, “I didn’t do that!” Well, even if you didn’t, you certainly would have witnessed it. Anyone who genuinely cares about a student’s right to learn would not want to go back to those so called fun times.

“I know what my students need”

If this is true, and your judgement is accurate enough to determine exactly what your students require to be successful learners, then you would be in hot demand. Whilst I also like to believe that I know my students and have a fairly good idea of what they might need, I still stick to the curriculum, reliable assessment and explicit instruction, just to make sure! But also, here is the good news: explicit instruction does require ongoing, frequent teacher judgement as you check for understanding and alter instruction accordingly. You still get to make decisions by combining your content knowledge with what you know about your students.

Offering students many opportunities to respond in a lesson provides you with many opportunities to assess your students and reflect on your instruction. This is teacher judgement in all of its glory. What a mighty teacher-judgement opportunity, as you receive real-time information about your students’ learning and then get to respond to it right away!

This call for autonomy is often a disguised plea for teaching on a whim and going back to a choose-your-own-adventure approach. It can also be a strategy for avoiding accountability. As Pamela Snow says, “Education has a problematic relationship with evidence”, and allowing teachers to independently decide for themselves exactly what students require is often the beginning of pseudoscience in the classroom.

“ I close the door and do what I want”

Subscribe now

This one really ruffles my lanyard! Those 6 hours behind that door are not yours. That classroom belongs to the 25 students that have been allocated to that class with an implicit belief that they are safe and learning. It is horrifying to me that any teacher can simply close a door and decide for themselves how they’d like the day to pan out.

This is where we talk about the teacher lottery. It is unjust that a classroom like this could sit right beside a classroom where the teacher is making decisions based on evidence, content knowledge and a deep understanding of the science of learning. Teaching has long been a hodgepodge of approaches, strategies and resources and our at-risk learners have been harmed the most. It is downright wrong that students can receive an inferior education based on what class list they end up on.

Teachers cannot ask to be trusted professionally and then boast about running their classroom like a separate entity, secretly doing their own thing. That is not behaving in a professional manner. If you want to be treated professionally, act like a professional. You don’t get to experiment with the education of students or squander their precious instructional time. There is not a lot that bothers me more than feigning compliance and then secretly rejoicing in your deception anonymously on facebook. Those poor students and parents who believe their child is getting the education that the school promotes.

“It is one size fits all, where’s the differentiation?”

The funny thing is that I have only ever seen genuine ‘differentiation’ when teachers respond to the instruction effectively. I have never seen it ever previously done well or effectively. Those starred worksheets from Twinkl et al. might have offered students the opportunity to complete work of different complexities, but they were largely predetermined, poorly targeted and ensured that certain students were automatically given more/less complex work without actually checking their understanding.

Reading, writing, maths - we will talk about the common subjects here. Each day you would need to have three different activities/responses for each of these lessons. Different templates, worksheets and/or responses for every lesson. Three a day and 21 a week. Crazy! Good luck keeping that up for an entire year.

For anyone that is truly concerned about the vast needs of a typical classroom, I can reassure you that explicit instruction does it effectively. But you really need to possess a decent idea of what explicit instruction is. I wrote an earlier substack on explicit destruction here, for more information.

Explicit instruction requires responsive instruction and a teacher with strong content knowledge. You will be required to check for understanding in real time, accurately determining which students will benefit from additional support. Your instruction should lower the floor and raise the ceiling for all students and at-risk learners should be provided with ongoing feedback and direct support during the instruction.

“Reading recovery works” “Reading recovery is the best training I have ever had”

I know a few ex-reading recovery teachers and they have gone one of two ways. They have either abandoned it completely, often angry that it was ever sold to them as an effective approach to reading. They’re now deeply committed to improving instruction and teacher knowledge. And then there are the others who continue to dig their heels deep into the core of the earth, relentlessly defending reading recovery and proclaiming that it is the best method for teaching reading.

It is not. It never was. Many reading recovery teachers were passionate educators doing their best at the time and are still passionate! But I have seen reading recovery delivered and I maintain that it was an exercise in word guessing, teaching phonemes on a whim, impusively during the lesson and unpacking the whole meaning of a book before it was read. Many teachers would disagree with me on this, and as always I would love someone to send me a link to a quality reading recovery lesson so I can watch for myself. Surely if it is so great, there has to be at least one recording on the whole of the internet that demonstates this. I will continue to wait.

This might also be a good time to ask if Victorian teachers online Facebook page has been renamed, or have I been booted?

If you haven’t already, check out my instagram teaching page @kylie.hoey_everything_teaching which I basically created as an outlet for my obsession with all things teaching and learning - and memes.

Subscribe now

I am a teacher in Victoria, and I can say that my state has made some solid progress and genuine shifts in practice. But I can also say that it is uncommon to find a school that has made a genuine shift at a whole-school level and is at a stage where they’re able to sustain it.1

In my own experiences and observations, as well as through my many, many (multiplied by many) conversations with teachers and leaders from varying schools, there appear to be four main ways to describe what is happening in some schools.

They are not listed in any hierarchical order.

• Passionate and knowledgeable leaders attempting to implement change within a rather hostile teacher environment, with a lot of pushback -see meme below.

• Passionate teachers attempting to upskill themselves, eager to transform their instruction but finding themselves in schools with leaders who are unable to explain and model the components of explicit instruction.2

• Schools that believe they have implemented explicit instruction but have not.

• Schools that are a messy blend of the first two points.

  

  Subscribe now

What do I think are the non-negotiables of explicit instruction, I hear you not ask me? Well, that would be teacher content knowledge, responsive instruction, and reliable assessment. If I had to teach on a deserted island and could only pack three components of effective teaching, I would choose these three. Perhaps I would also require some mini whiteboards to avoid modelling concepts and ideas in the sand, but I am sure you get my drift.

Explicit instruction is not a biologically primary skill, so unfortunately teachers are not born to naturally acquire the skills and knowledge that lead to effective instruction. Someone is going to have to explain and model these concepts to teachers and then give them time to practise and offer additional support if required. Sound familiar? Yes, teachers require exactly the same as our students — a chance to learn! (please note, em dash deliberately but cautiously added by me, a human)

So who does this responsibility fall upon? I would say a fair amount of that weight should fall onto universities, the institutions that are churning out new teachers and charging them a stack of money for the experience. But we know not all universities are doing a very good job of this.3 And really, even if they were, schools should still be providing ongoing professional development.

I do believe that schools have a responsibility to keep teachers up-to-date with their professional knowledge and skills. This is sadly not as common as people might think and has left some teachers having to navigate the changes in education on their own. This is where we see teachers complaining about how explicit instruction is not working, leaving students bored and teachers longing for autonomy.4

What is often described as explicit instruction is usually explicit destruction.

de + struct + ion

de = undo/remove

struct = to build

ion = makes something into a thing/idea

The thing or idea that is being built is being undone, removed, or broken.

When academic results don’t lift to the heights anticipated, the blame can be put on explicit instruction rather than on the actual instruction that took place.

A little while back, I wrote a Substack titled Inside the Facebook Teacher Wars, and you can read it here for some background knowledge on what I am about to say. Or, if you’re short on time, you can read the summary below, provided in meme form:

In my experience, the source of these common complaints mainly emerge from the following:

• Teachers feeling overwhelmed by change, out of their depth, and perhaps unsupported in transforming their instruction.

• Teachers grappling with the loss of identity they have developed within the profession of teaching.

• Teachers who strongly believe that teaching should be student-led, swaying towards the interests of students, with an emphasis on curiosity and inquiry.

Explicit destruction is boring and lifeless but explicit instruction is not. Before you make a decision on the value of explicit instruction in the classroom, first make sure that what you are judging is actually the real deal. Here are some clues that are not exhaustive.

In my own classroom, explicit instruction is doing what it is meant to do. My students are engaged, active learners who look forward to literacy and maths. I have full and active participation in each lesson because they are experiencing personal success that is leading to increased self-efficacy and positive behaviours for learning. I continue to hone my skills and tweak and adjust where needed. I am not bored and I am not suffering from a loss of autonomy. I am certainly providing the flavour to a recipe constructed from quality resources.

I use UFLI for my word decoding lesson and Ochre resources for language comprehension and maths. Not one single student has died by slides or boredom and I am thriving as a teacher, bouncing off the energy of my little learners who inspire me to be a better teacher each and every day.

The fact that some teachers are having an opposite kind of experience to me, demonstrates that there is clearly a lot going wrong with implementation. So here’s something that I never thought I’d say. I am not sure if I actually mean it, or if this is just the result of my frustration with explicit destruction... but I would say that balanced literacy is somewhat less harmful BIG BREATHS than teachers apathetically clicking through slides that they might not even know how to teach whilst students sit, watch and listen. AND SLOW EXHALE.

If you haven’t already, check out my instagram teaching page @kylie.hoey_everything_teaching which I basically created as an outlet for my obsession with all things teaching and learning - and memes.

But…

You only need to spend five minutes on a Facebook teacher page to discover that the profession of teaching is under fire from within. Posts read as an almost battle cry for educators who want to build a community of professional resistance to what they see as oppressive, controlling change in education. Cries of “death by slides,” “I am bored,” “the kids are bored out of their brains,” “the fun has been taken away,” and “I have no autonomy” are common, and the replies of support and solidarity are an indication that this isn’t just a few disillusioned teachers, but possibly an army of teachers struggling with the loss of everything that is familiar to them.

I find myself constantly swimming between feeling compassion and empathy for teachers who have left the university system without the content knowledge or skills to effectively teach in the classroom, and feeling frustrated and annoyed that some of these same teachers appear to double down against the research and evidence of how our students learn.

A teacher workforce shortage only strengthens their position, because at present we still have many teachers actively ignoring research and evidence, and teaching in a way that does not cater to the majority of students. Not a lot can be done about that when there is essentially no eager teachers waiting to replace them.

It is a frustrating and increasingly infuriating situation when we know there are systems, frameworks, and approaches that can close educational gaps and strengthen instructional practice, but they are often obstructed by teacher (and leadership) resistance.

Yes, leaders too. Sometimes schools are full of eager teachers, desperate for more professional learning and support in implementing strategies and approaches that we know are effective, but have leaders who actively hinder meaningful change.

The system is not okay.

So, getting back to those teacher Facebook groups that annoy me more than they should. Sometimes I reply to the comments, but lately I have made a hobby of applying anonymously - hello GenuineChestnut2829 - and I always have a little laugh to myself when colleagues or friends react positively to my comment, not knowing it is me. Well, from today, I have given up my hobby of being triggered by Facebook comments and I will no longer reply (no promises). Instead, this little Substack article will serve as my final reply to the most common complaints on these teacher Facebook pages.

Dear Facebook teacher page - I am mainly looking at you, Australian Primary Teachers.

“Death by slides”

Ah, death by slides, my absolute favourite. No one, absolutely no one, is telling you to click through slides and bore children to death. This is a teacher’s choice. So I would say choose wisely. Ask for support at your school to implement curriculum content via Google Slides or PowerPoint in a method that will engage and support student learning. You might be in need of some crucial professional learning around Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction and the effective use of engagement norms to ensure full and active participation. If your school is not willing to support your professional development as a teacher, then my advice is to move on. I can assure you that there are some great schools crying out for passionate teachers who are keen to learn and apply effective instructional routines.

I will also add that slides are not a mandatory component of explicit instruction, but they sure do make it easier, as you can offer students many examples in just a few minutes. If you are using something like Ochre, where you cannot avoid the use of slides, you can also teach alongside the slides, adding further information and clarification in your own way. You might use a document camera to demonstrate an idea or concept to students, or give further examples or explanations on the whiteboard. I use Ochre resources each day and I am constantly moving from the Ochre slides to my whiteboard that is conveniently right beside my television to offer further clarification or to teach a concept in another way if my students are struggling. I also use the whiteboard to add other questions to cater for particular students, if the question displayed on the slide is not meeting the needs of all. Responsive teaching is a must with explicit instruction.

I know I learnt a lot by watching and learning from others, and I still remember being quietly proud of how well I was doing with my daily reviews until I witnessed David Morkunas - yikes! I was not so great at them, so I put a lot of effort into getting daily reviews right.

As teachers, we should always be looking at ways to improve our craft and lift student engagement and participation. There is something exhilarating about teaching when you really get it right, so it is worth the effort, for your own professional satisfaction and for student learning.

“The kids are bored out of their brains”

Maybe it is time that you stopped boring them. I know that might sound a little mean or harsh, but if students are bored, you really need to do something about that. Explicit instruction is anything but boring. Ensure your instruction is targeting the needs of your students. If it is too easy or too difficult, yes students may check out. Children are not bored by learning, I can promise you that. See my answer to “death by slides” for more information, as it applies here too.

“I find it (explicit instruction) boring”

Sorry, it is not about you. And if you find it boring, what you have actually discovered is that you potentially do not like the profession of teaching. The very core of what it is to be a teacher should be effective instruction leading to student learning. I am usually at my happiest whilst teaching, as nothing motivates me more than my students making progress. I know not everyone will be the same and for many teachers the profession has changed into something they are not familar with. I would urge you to find a teacher near you that is doing a great job at explicit instruction and ask to watch them in action, as you may just need to see a good example to understand what is possible!

If you are geographically close to me, I would absolutely welcome observations as I strongly believe that watching effective teaching is the best way to truly understand it.

“I have lost my autonomy”

You have lost autonomy that was never yours to begin with. Teaching has long been romanticised as a profession where you can design themed classrooms, scour Pinterest and other websites for creative ways to “make learning fun,” brainstorm ideas for hands-on activities, and largely use the time in the classroom as you see fit.

Teachers have not lost their autonomy; they’ve simply lost the responsibility of having to create learning experiences from scratch based on assumptions, ideology, neuromyths, or ineffective assessment.

I teach with high energy. It is almost theatrical at times and I like throwing jokes in at appropriate times, but I’ve seen colleagues who are just as effective with a calm, measured approach. My personality is not that calm or measured, I am a little more upbeat, so it makes sense that my teaching reflects that. My students and routines are calm and measured, but I do have a lot of energy in my teaching style.

I have said this a lot and I will say it again: you get to add the flavour, but not the ingredients.

Your autonomy has not been taken away. It has instead been repackaged in a way that ensures teachers are professional, knowledgeable, and effective. You still have the autonomy to:

• Inject your personality and enthusiasm into lessons

• Check student understanding and decide on your response

• Respond to student learning based on reliable data

• Decide when to slow down, speed up, or repeat a lesson

• Identify students who may require additional support

• Decide when students are ready for independent practice

• Give feedback to improve student performance

• Set your classroom culture up for success

• Create and maintain positive relationships with your students

• And so on, and so forth

“They’re compliant, not engaged”

Firstly, how do you know that? What is it based on? Perhaps if student results are stagnating, I would agree, but I think this term is thrown around as an emotional response that is often born from some kind of belief that schools should be student-led, and that high expectations around behaviour and academics are controlling and/or oppressive for children.

The second thing I would like to say is: so what? Seriously, I have had some extremely challenging students in my classroom over the years. Students who are quick to anger, throwing things across the room, screaming, shouting, swearing, smashing things and disrupting learning constantly. Would it be the worst thing in the world if they were quietly compliant for a little while? Why can’t that be a win for the tired teacher and the students who now have a quiet, calm place to learn in?

When I think about my challenging students over the years, I look back knowing that they did learn whilst in my class once they were calm and following routines. But I assume that somewhere along that bridge from disruption to engagement, they were likely sitting in a stage of compliance. For how long, I can’t say. Can’t compliance be a stop-over, a stage, or even a necessary gateway to achieving engagement? Once a student is compliant, you can do a lot of work as a teacher to assist them in feeling academic and personal success in the classroom, which I firmly believe is the number one way to ensure engagement in learning.

Perhaps the pathway to learning for some students is disruption → compliance → engagement → learning.

Subscribe now

“I get a lot of useful info from running records”

No, you don’t.

But if you require further info, please listen to Sold a Story or check out

https://pamelasnow.blogspot.com/ where there are quite a few posts that relate to the effective instruction and assessment of reading.

And that my friends (and possible foes) is my response to the repetative complaints in facebook teacher land.

If you haven’t already, check out my instagram teaching page @Kylie.Hoey_everything_teaching which I basically created as an outlet for my obsession with all things teaching and learning.

Improved instruction, teacher knowledge and reliable assessment mean that your student reports should be far more accurate than ever before. BUT the progression points might not reflect these improvements. What could look like a failure to make progress is actually a reflection on past reporting and assessment practices that were not accurate and often placed students ahead of their actual achievement.

This could result in parents and some teachers arguing that the new way of teaching isn’t working. The truth is that it is likely working better than ever before, with the difference being that students are finally being assessed accurately.

A good example would be the use of PM benchmarking, which is now dying a not-slow-enough death. Many teachers will be familiar with the benchmarks surrounding this assessment looking something like this:

• Level 6-ish end of Prep

• Level 15-ish end of Grade 1

• Level 28-ish end of Grade 2

Student reports have reflected this arbitrary set of levels with most students being assessed against what we now know are not accurate, relevant or evidence-based levels.

I remember about 4 years ago when I first screened using DIBELS. I tried a little experiment where I compared 5 of my students who were all level 15 according to the PM benchmark, with their DIBELS results (Hoey, 2022, 😉).

The results spoke for themselves. The DIBELS data clearly demonstrated that the reading skills of these students was not comparable. All displayed strengths and deficits in different subsets of reading. Yet of course, in a typical classroom, they would have all been lumped into one reading group, likely targeting reading comprehension skills.

Assessments that have dressed themselves up as effective and reliable have thrown a cloak of darkness over genuine student outcomes. Many students have slipped through the net with a widening achievement gap, and despite significant reading or writing difficulties have been marked at-standard, or that dreaded 6 months behind, that appears to be an almost default progression point when educators know a student is behind but they really don’t know why or how.

12 months behind has often been reserved for those that have obvious reading and/or writing difficulties and this often follows them through to grade 6. As a former grade 6 teacher, I cannot tell you the amount of students that could not read and were continuously put 12 months behind. If a student cannot read in grade 6, I think we can all agree that 12 months behind is not going to cut it, but in my experience, it has been the norm.

If your school has introduced a structured approach to literacy that is assessed using reliable data, then all of a sudden, it can be quite frightening to realise the amount of students that will have a progression point that will remain stationary, or even (for the schools that allow this) move backwards and sometimes significantly backwards! I once had a grade 5 student that was marked 6 months below for reading and I had permission from the school, with consultation with the parents, to reset his progression point to where it should be, which was the end of grade 1.

A lack of clarity over reporting practices and not enough emphasis on building teacher content knowledge has meant that many schools are now dealing with historical reporting issues that are about to become glaringly obvious. When teachers have been unsupported to appropriately moderate and assess student learning, they often create a kind of bell curve in their head, where all students are assessed against the achievement of what they believe to be the average student in their class. It is not difficult to see how you would potentially have at-risk students marked at, or near standard, and typically progressing students marked as above standard.

I’d say teacher judgment has played a huge role in past reporting practices and we know with a fair amount of certainty that teacher judgement is often inaccurate, based on neuromyths and pseudo science, rather than informed by reliable data and genuine, effective formative assessment.

Teachers are now beginning to use formative assessment as a part of their every day instruction. They’re monitoring progress and intervening when necessary. They’re using summative and diagnostic assessments that can be relied upon as they build accurate understandings of how reading and writing skills develop. Consequently, gaps in student learning and understanding are being filled, shrunk and diminished. But if these students were not previously reported on accurately, you may face the frustration of not being able to reflect their academic progress on their school report.

It would be wise to identify these students early, before reports are completed. Parents need to be informed so that they understand the improvements made to instruction and assessment, and how this has transferred to academic progress. BUT they also deserve to know why this cannot be reflected on their child’s school report. Parents deserve this discussion, but so do the students who show up every day, engage in their learning, and will not have a report that reflects the progress that they have worked hard for.

The dip will be temporary as reports begin to reset themselves over time. I know some schools that used the covid remote learning time to reset all progression points for reports - a type of fresh start for reporting, a clearning of the slate. Perhaps now is the time for a report reset for your school. If you are finally assessing and reporting accurately, that is something to be proud of! Let’s create student reports that we are also proud of.

Most educators will be familiar with the scenario of the disruptive student being removed from class, only to return 10 minutes later with movie tickets, a meat tray and a lifetime supply of chupa chups.  Ok, that might be a slight exaggeration, but hopefully I have made my point - disruptive behaviour is often being rewarded under the guise of relationship building and wellbeing.

Why does the word consequence have a negative connotation in education? I have always given consequences in my classroom, and to me it is an act of kindness, a reminder that I want better for that student and I am not giving up on them. I won’t allow them to ruin their learning, or the learning of others. It is an opportunity for them to understand that I mean what I say, and that I am consistent, predictable and fair. It is a chance to model or explain the desired behaviour - an important opportunity for a behaviour reset that shouldn’t be missed.

Disruptive behaviour in the real world will have you removed from a sporting stadium even if you’re just one person out of 100,000. Yet when a student is constantly disruptive and is one person out of 25, they’re often allowed to stay. The other students are expected to ignore the behaviour and any effect it has on their ability to concentrate and learn.

I am not advocating for exclusion here, but if in society we value the positive experience of 100,000 sporting fans, then surely we can do the same for 25 kids in the classroom. Surely their experience matters too.

Flip this around and imagine that you keep disrupting staff meetings by chatting, not getting off your computer, calling out and speaking rudely to other members of staff. Your principal chats to you about this and you tell her you are bored and constantly feel tired at that time of day. The principal responds by first offering you a coffee and some cake and then telling you that anytime you are feeling frustrated or bored in a staff meeting, you can leave and go for a walk or spend time on your phone instead.

I don’t know about any of you, but as soon as I couldn’t be bothered being in that staff meeting, I would be out that door! As soon as I wanted to do something else with my time, I would be out of there real quick! I am a grown adult and I would likely take advantage of this invitation to leave any meeting I am not interested in.

I cannot imagine how my colleagues would feel seeing this happen but I am sure it is something similar to how students feel when the disruptive student is rewarded and allowed to leave class or given a special privilege, directly after interrupting their learning.

I am yet to see disruptive behaviour improve because of a lollypop, sticker or the responsibility of a special job. I am not saying this has never happened, but in all of my experience, it does zilch for improving student behaviour. Despite this, I could say with a fair amount of certainty that most educators have seen this approach with behaviour and felt the frustration of the student returning to class with no consequence whatsoever.

What I find most difficult to get my head around is that despite little or no improvement in behaviour, this approach is usually repeated, day after day, year after year. Behaviour should be treated like academics and when something is not working, the approach, strategy or dosage needs to change. (Hint: I am not suggesting, more lollipops, but rather a change in strategy).

The most frustrating part is that the challenging students who often disrupt learning can be some of the most rewarding to teach. They can have a brilliant sense of humour and genuine compassion and empathy for others, but we often never get to truly see this part of them. It is hidden below layers of behaviour incidents that are being solidified by an ineffective response. 

We are often failing these students by avoiding the hard conversations and the effort to remain consistent and fully committed to promoting positive behaviours in the classroom.

I once had a colleague, many years ago say that they just wanted to see their students go home feeling happy. I replied that for some of my students, I would like them to go home reflecting on their behaviour. 

Tier 1 behaviour support = classroom environment

Students are humans, so of course they’re diverse and unique. While there is no magic bullet for managing behaviour, you can set up your classroom and systems of support so you can manage behaviour effectively as needed, rather than micromanaging managing it every minute of the day.

Enough of groundhog day for behaviour!

Teaching a child to self-regulate in a noisy chaotic classroom is wild to me. Teaching children to survive instead of thrive is not where we should be. 

“Teaching social emotional skills to kids in chaotic classrooms is like teaching swimming techniques to someone who is drowning” - Carl Hendrick

A calm, routine driven classroom where skills and concepts are taught explicitly and students have time to practice with guided support is an excellent intervention for student behaviour and wellbeing. Learning in an environment that feels safe and predictable, with a teacher that is firm but kind and responsive is an excellent intervention for student behaviour and wellbeing.

High expectations for academics and behaviour equals wellbeing. Begin the school year by setting YOUR expectations for academics and behaviour. Communicate to the class that all rules and expectations have two purposes - either to help you learn, or keep you safe and usually, it is both. 

Do not have separate rules for little Johnny, or Claire who display more challenging behaviours. If it is not okay for Claire to call out answers, then it is not okay for anyone.  Avoid any sort of rules that only apply to certain students.

 I make it very clear that my rules and expectations are for everyone, and that is what makes it so fair. I don't have Ben rules or Claire rules or Tommy or Johnny rules -  I only have rules that are for everyone. 

This works nicely when a student insists on doing something different: “Sorry, I don’t have Zachary rules. I have rules for everyone, and everyone else is writing.”

To be clear here, I absolutely make  accommodations and modifications  when needed - but rarely for avoidance or preference.

Your tier 1 intervention for behaviour is going to come from your routines, consistency, and the academic achievements of students.

Develop well rehearsed routines for;

•  lining up

• entering and exiting the classroom 

• transitioning between floor and table 

• getting fruit snack, or lunch

• using mini whiteboards

• turn and talks

• And …everything! 

Routines are where you get your quick but permanent wins. Model exactly what this looks like. I even model how to lose a game appropriately. In my experience, this has been incredibly effective. Students need to learn that it is okay to be disappointed, but how they respond matters.

Support or enabling?

Students often take on the exact behaviour that they believe others are expecting in them. I remember one sentence that had a big impact on improving a student’s behaviour. It was a grade 5 student who was known for angry outbursts, destroying furniture, exiting the classroom on a whim and screaming at teachers.  

I asked him  “aren't you tired of being known as that kid - the naughty kid?” The way his eyes looked at me as he replied yes, is something I will always remember. I told him how it is never too late to reinvent himself, and at the age of 11, he certainly is in a great position to change the way others view him.

 I remember drawing a path for him and drawing a stick figure representing him, standing at the base of a fork in the road. The fork led to two very different outcomes. To cut a very long story short, this student ended up having an incredibly positive year at school - his first one ever. But it involved a tough first term of reinforcing expectations and delivering a combination of consequences and tough but positive conversations.

 In his Christmas card to me, he drew that same path with the fork in the road and drew himself on that path, further up one of the forks in the road, demonstrating to me that he was now on the positive path. I still have that card.

Another big catalyst for disruption in the classroom is task avoidance. A child attempts to avoid a task or situation and then a modification is added formally to their PLP or behaviour plan. This is usually in the form of an alternative timetable or extra brain breaks to water plants or shoot hoops (or similar).

 Essentially the student has been given an escape route any time they want it. This means that with the school’s assistance, they're managing to avoid work/scenarios at school they dislike. This of course only entrenches the worries/anxiety and makes it increasingly unlikely that they’ll ever be able to engage in that activity. It is definitely not the child being supported here. 

Continually allowing a student to opt out of learning is a harsh punishment. It is a punishment that can have life-long consequences. A student leaving school without the skills and knowledge that they could have developed is probably the worst kind of punishment I can think of at school.

Every time a student is allowed to opt out of leaning, they risk falling further behind. This often means that attempts to engage the child in any future learning will be increasingly difficult, as they’ve already learned that participation is a choice. As the academic gaps widen, so does the disengagement; especially when that disengagement is accepted.

I don't think any child should be allowed to repeatedly avoid work. The goal should be behaviour and academics because both of them are essential to student wellbeing.

When you have high expectations, strong routines and boundaries and a warm way of interacting with your students, the most disengaged students can and do flourish.

 Consequences, not punishment

To be clear, my definition of punishment is a repercussion that might be impulsive, illogical or plain mean. A consequence, on the other hand, should be predictable, make sense, feel fair and be delivered with compassion.  Or a succinct explanation  - consequences without dialogue and support feels like punishment.

One of the most divisive things I have ever said on social media wasn’t about any of the usual feisty topics, such as politics, the pandemic, or sports.  It was when I said that my students accept consequences with very little push back. I was accused of lying and exaggerating but I was in fact being entirely truthful. 

Very recently, 3 students were still playing in the sandpit after the bell rang. I was waiting in line with the other students. I went over and reminded them of the expectation to be in the line, in roll order before the music ends. I then told them that they would make up that time by staying in for 3 minutes at recess the next day. As I turned around and walked off, I heard one of them say “we deserve that”.  It was actually rather cute but they knew the rules and at only 6 years of age accepted the consequences. No-one has been late to line since. This one small logical consequence has potentially saved hours of lost instructional time over the year. 

I often name consequences ahead of time, such as in the previous scenario. I had already explained to my class about the importance of being in line and the consequence of making up that time. I truly believe that there are many students who feel relief when given consequences, even when they may initially push back to see how serious you really are. These are young humans, most between the ages of 5 and 12, and some of these students are waiting for a teacher to give them permission to behave. The strong, predictable boundaries mean that the decision to misbehave is finally taken out of their hands. 

Ensure you offer lots of praise whenever you see desirable behaviour (sometimes in a whisper as not all students like public praise), and look for opportunities for them to feel success in the classroom. Ask questions that you know they can answer, create opportunities to respond that you know they are capable of and layer on the positive feedback at any and all opportunities. I cannot underestimate the power that comes from a student feeling academic success.

As I said previously, consequences must come with a conversation and a chance to reset the behaviour. Here are some opening lines that I have found particularly effective;

• You are better than this

• This is not who you are

• I want more for you than this

• If I didn't care about you, I would let you keep behaving like this

• Because I care, I won’t let this continue

• When you don’t learn, you are only hurting yourself

Have these conversations regularly, while the undesirable behaviour is still occurring frequently.. Many students will want to test how serious you are and will continue to push those boundaries in an effort to find a weakness in your armour. This is the most important time to remain consistent and keep delivering the same message. Students will feel safer when they know there is no give and that what you say is what you really mean.

At the heart of this is a simple truth. Every child deserves a classroom where they can learn, feel safe, and experience success. Consequences are not about control, they are about care. They are about holding the line so that all students, especially the most vulnerable, get what they need to thrive. If we truly believe in equity, then we cannot continue to excuse disruption at the expense of others. We must be brave enough to be consistent, clear, and compassionate and remember that doing what is right for students is not always what feels easiest or most pleasant in the moment.

To avoid any confusion, I use the terms ‘instruction’ and ‘intervention’ interchangeably throughout because all reading instruction is intervention and all reading intervention is instruction.

The Response to Intervention framework (RTI) is something we are all becoming familiar with. On the surface it appears reasonably easy to understand -a multi tiered approach to instruction that identifies academic and behavioural issues early. The tiers are conceptualised as a pyramid, representing the typical spread of student achievement. The bottom of the pyramid represents about 80% of students who are able to achieve proficiency through whole class instruction alone. Tier 2 instruction, the middle of the pyramid, provides an additional dosage of instruction for about 15-20% of students, with the apex representing 3-5% of students who require more intensive, targeted support. These tiers are dynamic and informed by a tight relationship between instruction and assessment.

What looks easy and straightforward on paper can be far from it in practice. The road from theory to implementation can be rocky, slippery and filled with potholes.

The RTI framework is not something that can be implemented in a way that is almost or nearly there. The working mechanisms of a school’s response to instruction is either in line with RTI or it is not. There is no checklist that applies weighting to the most important features of RTI in a way that can assess if your school is at 70, 80 or 90% fidelity. I believe this is an important point because there are many schools trying their best, believing they are implementing the RTI framework, but are actually making some significant errors that are undermining the success of their hard work. Being seen as ‘pretty much there’ can actually stop further progress and allow misconceptions to compromise reading instruction. Schools should regularly audit their own implementation to assess whether their response to instruction is aligned with the RTI framework. It should be a yes or no answer, and if no, let the discussions and problem solving begin!

More schools than ever before are working hard to improve their approach to reading. They’re getting rid of ineffective assessments (yes, I’m looking at you, F&P), replacing predictable texts with decodable readers, and the 3-cueing system is finally looking at the first letter, taking a good guess and exiting stage left! Good riddance.

Reading instruction is beginning to reflect the principles of The Simple View of Reading by explicitly teaching both word reading and language comprehension. There is a definite shift in the educational landscape but there are still many schools putting quality reading instruction in jeopardy.

Many parents feel relief when told their child is receiving reading intervention, but the blatant truth is, for many of these students, rather than receiving additional instruction, they are receiving alternative or inferior instruction.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the biggest issues I see when implementing the RTI framework in schools. (I’m not going to get into the issues with assessment as it requires a lot more than I am able to write at the present time).

Implementing it all before planning it all

It is time for schools to start treating whole class instruction like a post office and build the rest of the town around it. A post office is often the heart of the town and Tier 1 instruction is absolutely the heart of the RTI framework. Don’t begin building Tier 2 instruction until your Tier 1 instruction is strong.

Once strong, build roads from your Tier 1 instruction straight to the Tier 2 instruction. Many schools make the mistake of building a bridge that passes directly over that critical core instruction.

Post offices get demolished when the community no longer use it, so don’t let that happen to Tier 1 instruction. Everyone in the class should have access to whole class teaching. I have seen Tier 1 absolutely demolished by students being taken out and returned at random and odd times throughout the literacy block.

Communities build ramps to ensure equal access to their post office. Whole class instruction should be no different. Effective instruction lowers the floor and raises the ceiling to ensure full participation.

Building strong core instruction should be the first priority for improving reading instruction and it is fundamental in any RTI implementation. Whilst schools are rightly eager to implement Tier 2 instruction, if your whole class instruction is still in building mode, your energies and focus are moving in the wrong direction. Many schools will need to keep renovating the post office before expanding further.

We need to stop building the whole town when the post office isn’t even functioning correctly.

Possible solution - if your school has the expertise amongst staff, instructional coaching in literacy is a must. This is the fastest way to improve and sustain desired practice.

If coaching is not feasible in your setting, start filming teachers who are modelling effective instructional routines. You might film an effective phonics lesson, a great mini whiteboard routine, an impressive paired fluency structure, etc. Create a shared Google drive to store these best practice snippets. You can also find great examples of effective instructional routines on the internet, so be sure to upload some of them too!

Far too often we expect teachers to be the masters of an approach that they have never seen with their own eyes.

Ensure that professional learning is targeted to the needs of teachers - what do they need to learn in order to improve whole class instruction and lift reading outcomes at your school?

Staff without relevant training or knowledge working with the most vulnerable readers

Imagine this scenario.

You go and visit your GP after feeling unwell. Your test results look concerning, so your GP refers you to a specialist. You feel reassured that you are seeing someone with the expertise to assist you. However, what you do not realise is that the specialist knows less about your health condition than your GP does.

You will continue to see this specialist whenever they’re available. If you do not improve, your referral will simply be updated so you can continue seeing the same specialist, for years if necessary. When you still don’t get better, a team of doctors meet to discuss the likelihood that something else must be wrong with you. They’re not quite sure what it could be, but they’ll ensure you continue seeing the specialist whenever possible because perhaps it just needs some more time.

This medical scenario is clearly wild. Alarm bells ring immediately.

In schools, reading intervention can look exactly like this and often does not raise an eyebrow. Students are being pulled from the classroom for Tier 2 instruction that is being delivered by a staff member without the necessary training and knowledge.

Tier 2 instruction runs the risk of being little more than a box to tick. Whilst it looks great telling parents their child is receiving reading intervention, it simply cannot be labelled as such when instruction is delivered by someone without the necessary skills and knowledge. Instead of the student receiving additional instruction, they are receiving inferior instruction.

Possible solution - if you are unable to source or train skilled staff to deliver Tier 2 intervention, then don’t do it at all. If the Tier 1 instruction is strong, consider timetabling support staff in the classroom during the independent (you do) stage of the instructional cycle. The support staff can roam the room, keeping the class on task and quiet, whilst the classroom teacher works with the at-risk readers in a small group.

This group might:

• Receive repeated instruction of the ‘I do’ phase of the lesson

• Remain in the ‘we do’ cycle of instruction to receive an additional dose of guided practice

• Complete independent work (I do) with teacher support where the responses are adapted if needed (for example, less responses or adapting the type of response)

This is still Tier 2 intervention. It is not mandatory for it to be a small group pulled into the hallway or another room. The location is largely irrelevant. What matters is that it is a double dose, delivered by the educator with the relevant expertise. For some schools, the classroom teacher is the most qualified to deliver Tier 2 intervention.

Tier 2 instruction is clashing with Tier 1 instruction

Timetabling in schools can be challenging. There is no denying that. With competing priorities and limited staffing, getting it right can feel near impossible.

Imagine this scenario.

Your test results show you are lacking essential vitamins and minerals. Your doctor tells you to improve your main meal each day and take a dietary supplement to enhance the effects of your improved diet. This makes perfect sense. You understand that a supplement alone will not be enough. You need to eat better and ensure your main meal is nutritious.

Yet in classrooms, our most at-risk readers are often placed on an academic diet. They miss the main meal and go straight to the supplement.

Tier 1, whole-class teaching is the main meal. It is where students receive the bulk of their nutrient-rich learning. Tier 2 is the supplement. It provides the extra boost.

A supplement alone will not compensate for a poor diet, and Tier 2 alone will not compensate for missing Tier 1 instruction. You cannot skip main meals and expect a supplement to fix it and you cannot remove a student from Tier 1 instruction and expect Tier 2 to fix it.

If intervention does not increase the instructional dosage, it is not intervention, it is alternative instruction. 

Are your at-risk readers struggling to make meaningful progress because they are on an academic diet?

There is so much to be proud of when you look at the shifts schools are making but much of that hard work is undermined when at-risk students are pulled from this improved Tier 1 instruction to participate in Tier 2 intervention.

That means only some students are benefiting from these positive changes and here’s a clue, it is not your at-risk readers.

Possible solution - Firstly, scrap Tier 2 instruction if it is clashing with Tier 1. This cannot continue and needs to cease as a matter of urgency until a workable solution can be found.

Problem solving can begin by considering whether Tier 2 instruction could occur:

• At the beginning of the day

• During specialist subjects on a rotating basis

• In place of LOTE

• Towards the end of the literacy block

• During independent work in any subject

• Directly after lunch

Find spots in your timetable where it could work without inadvertently widening the reading gap.

Tier 2 instruction is inconsistent or timetabled only once or twice a week

“A little is better than none at all,” right?

Yeah, nah. Nope.

As harsh as it may sound: do it properly or not at all. These students do not get a second chance. It is hard to argue against the idea that a school’s core purpose is to teach children to read. I cannot think of a single priority that should come before that. By now, most of us have heard about the importance of repetition and for our out-risk readers, this is especially true.

Once you find time for intervention - protect it!

“One session a week is not reading intervention”

What is negatively impacting on Tier 2 reading instruction at your school? Father’s Day stalls, footy parade, school Mass, incursions…I could go on but I think anyone that has worked in a school will have experienced the myriad of events that disrupt reading intervention.

As the above image demonstrates, regular and frequent intervention adds up to about 80 hours a year of instructional time! Can you imagine if your at-risk readers received 80 hours of additional quality reading instruction on top of the roughly 320 hours a year devoted to the instruction of reading/spelling/writing at a whole class level?

Effective reading intervention means the instruction increases in frequency. Students should be receiving a double dose of teaching, otherwise, the likelihood of meaningful impact drops significantly.

Possible solution - Once you timetable your Tier 2 instruction, you must protect it. Clashes with extracurricular activities should be avoided wherever possible.

For intervention to be effective, it must be regular and frequent. There is a general consensus that reading intervention should take place a minimum of 3 times a week to close achievement gaps and lift reading outcomes. It would make sense to timetable intervention for 5 days a week, so that 3 times a week becomes achievable, even on the most disruptive weeks. On an anecdotal level, I have had success with running small groups 5 times a week for a shorter period of time - for example, 5 sessions a week for 15 minutes. Protect that time like the rare gem it is!

If we are serious about equity, then we must also be serious about dosage, fidelity and protecting Tier 1 at all costs. The Response to Intervention framework sits under the Multi-Tiered System of Supports umbrella and is an integral part of a school-wide system designed to meet the academic, behavioural and social-emotional needs of the student community. It must be implemented with fidelity. Full stop.

Our most vulnerable readers cannot afford for us to blur the lines of what additional instruction truly means. They cannot afford academic diets, inconsistent supplements or systems that look impressive on paper but collapse in practice. If we truly believe that every child can learn to read, then our structures must reflect that belief clearly, deliberately and without compromise.