Consistency is the playground of dull minds.
Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens
What’s so great about consistency? How has the consensus that everybody ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’ is always the best idea arisen? Superficially it makes sense – a choir singing from different hymn sheets would create a cacophony – but if we stretch the metaphor a little we can see that while a choir may be singing the same hymn, different choristers will be singing different parts and in different keys. Their hymn sheets will be different.
As Harari says in, Sapiens, “Just as when two clashing musical notes played together force a piece of music forward, so discord in our thoughts, ideas and values compel us to think reevaluate and criticise.” Inconsistency is the engine room of creativity and innovation. The ability to grapple with competing, contradictory ideas is the hallmark of maturity and sophistication; accepting cognitive dissonance is the only way to avoid bias and prejudice.
In a secondary school, who knows best how to teach the Year 9 history curriculum to 9X3? Who’s the expert at teaching GCSE PE to 10J1? Who would you want to make decisions about what texts to choose for an A level literature class composed of a mix of plodders and brainiacs? If, as a school leader your answer is ‘me,’ or ‘I don’t know,’ then shame on you. The (often unacknowledged) experts are experienced subject teachers.
I spent a day with a very successful English department recently talking about some of my thoughts and ideas about how to teach English. To most of the younger members of the department much of what I as saying was new, unfamiliar and, dare I say it, exciting. One older teacher spent a good deal of the time staring at me quizzically. When I’d finished my exposition she came over for a chat. She told me that she already did pretty much all the things I was suggesting but hadn’t known she was doing them – she was ‘just teaching’.
It became clear that she was considered a maverick by her head of department, a liability by some members of the leadership team and a legend by her students. I haven’t enjoyed talking to another teacher about English teaching so much for ages! But what I found most fascinating was that whereas a lot of what I know is filtered through education theory and psychology, most of what she knew was tacit. She hadn’t realised how much of an expert she was.
My advice to the school was to get all the younger teachers in the team to spend as much time as possible watching their more experienced colleague to try and pass on as much of her wisdom and practical knowledge as possible.
It would appear from some recent conversations that Ofsted’s current direction of travel when evaluating the effectiveness of leadership and management is to check to what extent teachers are following school policies. If teachers are found to be following policies then apparently the school is considered well led. (Obviously, there also has to at least a superficial correlation between said policies and increasing results and good behaviour.) Not unreasonably, this might lead some to conclude that the most effective way to run a school is to mandate what teacher should be doing and then enforce compliance through lesson observations and book audits. This would be a mistake.
Much better to have a policy of trusting teachers to be experts. And better still to leave the evaluation of this expertise to subject leaders. If your policy for, say, marking, is to allow each subject leader to determine, in consultation with their team, the best way to approach marking in their subject area, compliance is unlikely to be an issue. And neither is consistency.
Teachers will have signed up to do what’s best for their students in their subject areas. Instead of a school full of glassy-eyed automatons all singing the same notes at the same time, the corridors will fill with joyful and divergent harmonies, clashing at times but building to a triumphant crescendo.
I realise I’ve stretched this particular metaphor to breaking point, but the point is to encourage school leaders to embrace the potential of discord, dissonance and uncertainty. Maybe harmony, or at least euphony, relies on discord?
Interesting use of a musical metaphor, David! In music education I’ve been saying for a while that consistency shouldn’t be confused with coherence. This is especially true for assessment systems, which for music ed in a number of schools often basically just don’t work. A school will want to report to parents in a way which is coherent, but that doesn’t mean, as you point out, that the music dept has to do the same as the maths dept. After all, the latter will normally see kids multiple times each week, whereas the same pupils might get music only once a fortnight. So why should music have to assess and report using the same system? The schools needs coherence, sure, but this does not mean the same as consistency. In fact I have gone so far as to say that differentiation for kids = good, for teachers = bad in the ways some school systems require their various subjects to work. So, yes, as you say, leave it to the subject experts. And in music we know that you can sing from the same hymn-sheet, but that four-part harmony sounds better than out of tune monody!
I couldn’t agree more. For a start, I don’t believe there is a single best way to teach anything, any more than there is a single best way to run a business, cook a lasagne or stage a production of Twelfth Night. These are messy, human endeavours.The idea that there even exists an optimal method is silly. I’m not saying that we can’t make judgements about good and bad teaching – just as we make judgements about businesses, lasagnes and theatre productions. However, out in the real world, humanity progresses by trial and error. We need to allow that process to occur in schools.
Outside of teaching and learning, there are some elements of school life where some level of consistency is to be valued – behaviour would be one. I think having a core of standard values and procedures for behaviour makes a real difference in a school. Even then of course, there has to be room for nuance and judgement.
The argument that has been offered to us in favour of consistency is the mythical simian “Supply Teacher” who turns up at a school 2 minutes before the bell, is confused by most forms of the written word and cannot follow simple instructions competently (in the eyes of an old headteacher, this was the best we could hope for from the supply pool).
This Supply Teacher can only hope to perform a day’s work if the plans, marking, routines etc etc are IDENTICAL throughout the school. this allows the SMT to sup[ort the troubled and challenged Supply Teacher and explain to the Supply Teacher how the class will work because WE ARE ALL THE SAME.
I believe that consistency isn’t necessary. That very word has caused lots of misery. Aurthur Dent dared to ask why do we need bypasses. I am asking why do we need consistency.
Please read this post
https://joiningthedebate.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/43/
I completely agree. No irony intended. I’m very averse to everyone doing what everyone does just because everyone does it. That way lies ritualisation of behaviour and what we need is to question our behaviour and what we are told to do.
Hi David – all of my instincts agree. However, what do you make of the following case? This year I have joined a new school which is quite autocratic and “robustly” led and managed. Since the new leadership took over it has gone from a school that (according to FFT data) was at the 76th percentile for progress in outcomes and has risen steadily to being at the 18th percentile. The development of the school can be clearly (obviously not conclusively) tied to the interventions and whole school decisions/policies that have been pursued. Is it not the case that some schools do benefit from such an approach? The Michaela School is another institution that seems to be doing interesting things with a whole-school approach, as was the King’s Leadership Academy that you wrote about a while ago…
There’s no doubt that authoritarianism can make a difference to poorly performing schools and it might well be that in schools where there is no clear structure an imposed culture & vision is better than none. This is not the case at schools like Michaela and KSA where teachers join specifically because they are aligned with the purposes & practices of the school.
By and large, alignment, shared vision and moral purpose are beneficial where cracking the whip for consistency is probably only successful in the short term.
The other area to consider is opportunity cost: the cost of ‘robust’ leadership is not only the time, effort & resources it consumes (teacher burnout?) but also the cost of the best foregone alternative. I strongly the suggest that while brute more might ‘work’ there are better ways.
A long time ago someone pointed out to me that ‘consistency is a measure of thickness’. Just a thought!
I could interpret that in two very different ways 🙂
[…] – Discord isn’t disharmony: in praise of inconsistency ‘Consistency’ seems to have taken on the mantle of unanimous approval and become the […]