18 September 2026
Every few years, a familiar pattern emerges. A new book captures attention; a framework gains momentum and schools begin discussing a different way to think about teaching. Yet many of these approaches share more similarities than differences.
Assessment for Learning promoted clear objectives and success criteria. Allison and Tharby’s Making Every Lesson Count highlighted challenge, explanation, modelling, practice, feedback and questioning. Rosenshine’s principles emphasised review, modelling, guided practice, questioning and checking understanding. More recently, Chiltern Learning Trust’s Great Teaching Framework has focused attention on securing attention, communicating meaning, driving hard thinking, scaffolding practice, utilising memory and checking for understanding.
Despite their different language, each model attempts to answer the same question: what do effective teachers do that helps pupils learn?
The recurring nature of these ideas should not be surprising. Strong teaching has always involved explaining clearly, helping pupils practise, checking understanding and building knowledge over time. New frameworks often reorganise established principles rather than replace them.
The real challenge is not deciding whether teaching models have value. It is deciding how schools should use them.
The three approaches schools tend to adopt
Schools often sit somewhere between three broad positions.
The first is formulaic. A particular model becomes the expected way to teach. Lessons follow prescribed routines and leaders look for specific techniques during observations and learning walks. Consistency becomes the priority.
The second is a framework approach. Teachers are encouraged to use evidence-informed principles, but they retain professional discretion over how those principles appear in different subjects, classes and contexts.
The third is freedom. Teachers choose their own methods with minimal reference to a whole-school teaching model.
Each position has strengths and weaknesses. Formulaic approaches can help schools where teaching quality varies widely. They provide a shared language and can establish minimum expectations quickly. Freedom allows experienced teachers to adapt their practice and develop approaches that suit their expertise. Frameworks attempt to balance both aims, providing direction without prescribing every decision.
In practice, the most effective schools often avoid the extremes. They offer enough structure to support teachers while leaving sufficient room for professional judgement.
Why technique alone is not enough
One of the most important insights from the Chiltern Learning Trust framework is that teaching is driven by purpose rather than technique.
A teacher may use cold calling to regain attention, check understanding or stimulate thinking. Another may use modelling to communicate ideas or scaffold practice. The technique remains the same, but the purpose changes.
This distinction matters because effective teaching rarely comes from following a script. It comes from understanding why a particular approach is needed at a particular moment.
A classroom is a complex environment. Teachers respond constantly to pupils’ misconceptions, levels of confidence, prior knowledge and engagement. These decisions happen quickly and often instinctively. Over time, experienced teachers build a repertoire of approaches and learn when each is most effective. A framework can support that decision-making. A formula can replace it.
When consistency becomes conformity
Schools understandably seek consistency. Pupils should receive a high-quality experience regardless of which class they join. Departments need common standards. New teachers benefit from clear guidance, but problems arise when consistency becomes conformity.
When every lesson must follow the same sequence, teachers can begin focusing on compliance rather than learning. The question shifts from “What do these pupils need?” to “Does this lesson fit the model?” That shift risks reducing teaching to a checklist.
Professional expertise develops through reflection, experimentation and adaptation. Teachers refine explanations, alter questioning techniques and modify activities as they learn more about their pupils. If every decision is predetermined, opportunities for professional growth become limited. The goal should not be identical lessons. The goal should be consistently effective lessons.
Looking beyond “I do, we do, you do”
The popular “I do, we do, you do” structure illustrates this challenge well. Used thoughtfully, it provides a powerful sequence for introducing new knowledge. Teachers model a process, guide practice and then release responsibility to pupils.
However, it should not become the only route through a lesson. In some situations, greater impact comes from reversing the sequence. Allowing pupils to attempt a task before direct instruction can reveal misconceptions, generate curiosity and create a stronger need for explanation. Struggle, when carefully managed, can become a valuable part of learning.
The most effective teachers understand the principle behind the model rather than treating the model as a fixed recipe. The question is not whether “I do, we do, you do” works. The question is when it works best and when another approach may work better.
Innovation often works because it is different
Many successful teaching approaches succeed because they offer something distinctive.
Time2Code provides an interesting example. Pupils learn through video instruction and progress at different rates. There are no traditional lesson objectives displayed at the start of each lesson and no requirement for every pupil to move through content simultaneously. The approach challenges several assumptions found in more conventional models, yet it has proved highly successful for many learners.
This highlights an important point. Effective teaching cannot always be predicted by asking whether a strategy conforms to a particular framework. Sometimes innovation emerges when teachers identify a problem and design a solution that breaks established patterns.
The same principle applies at whole-school level. An initiative that works brilliantly in one department may lose its effectiveness when copied everywhere. Context matters. Subject disciplines differ. Pupil groups differ. Teachers differ. An idea can be effective partly because it fills a unique need within a particular setting.
Avoiding the trap of educational fashions
Education continually generates new areas of interest, from Blooms and solo taxonomy, from Rosenshine to semantic waves. Most bring valuable insights. The mistake is not studying these ideas. The mistake is assuming that any single idea provides the answer to every teaching challenge.
Research should inform professional judgement rather than replace it. A teacher who understands cognitive load can make better decisions. A teacher who understands retrieval practice can strengthen memory. A teacher who understands modelling can improve explanations.
However, effective teaching remains more than the application of individual theories. It depends on the ability to combine principles, respond to context and make thoughtful decisions in real time.
The framework that supports professionalism
The strongest teaching models act as maps rather than satnavs. They identify important territory. They help teachers understand key principles. They provide common language for professional discussion. They support development, especially for those early in their careers.
What they should not do is dictate every turn. Effective teaching models help teachers think more deeply about their decisions. Ineffective teaching formulas remove the need to think at all.
That distinction may be the most useful test of any new initiative. If a model develops professional judgement, it is likely to improve teaching. If it demands unquestioning compliance, it risks becoming teaching by numbers.
The aim is not to create identical classrooms. It is to create classrooms where effective principles guide skilled professionals who understand when to follow a model, when to adapt it and when to do something completely different. That is where great teaching is most likely to be found.
Want to know more? Watch our latest video on ‘At the chalk face’ where Craig & Dave tackle a question that will probably make a few teachers nod, smile… and perhaps roll their eyes!
How much should schools dictate how teachers teach? Is it better to have a formula that everyone follows, a framework that provides guidance, or complete freedom to let teachers use their professional judgement?
They also get stuck into some bigger questions around pedagogy, cognitive load theory, semantic waves, teaching strategies and the science of learning. When does useful research become an overly prescriptive teaching formula? And are we sometimes so focused on ticking the right boxes that we forget the most important people in the classroom – the students?
Watch the video here.
Looking for resources to help make the new academic year easier? Explore our Craig’n’Dave Resource Centre for ready-to-use Computer Science teaching resources, or use Smart Revise to support effective revision and reduce workload.
