This lands hard, especially the "I do, we do, you do" section. The thing I see constantly on social media — and I think it connects directly to what you're describing — is people sharing a few unbelievable writing samples, the kind that generate a ton of oohs and ahs because they look so polished.
More often than not, when I've dug deeper what's being celebrated is a copy of the shared piece, not an independent construction.
And that's a distinction worth sitting with, because "we do" isn't supposed to be transcription — it's supposed to be the messy, oral, collective work of building something together, again and again, until the moves become available to a child independently.
The whole value of that phase lives in the grappling, not in the artifact it produces.
When what gets shared is a polished copy, the most important instructional work — the noticing, the decision-making, the "why this word and not that one" — has usually happened invisibly, or not at all, exactly like you're describing with the model itself.
I wrote about this distinction in my book, We-Do Writing — the difference between a "we do" that's genuine shared construction (oral, iterative, revised in real time) versus a "we do" that's really much closer to an "I do" with an audience that's holding pencils.
The second version produces the samples that go viral. The first one produces writers.
I love beautiful books but you have given me much to think about. I have always wanted students to get over the fear of writing something wrong, be able to cross out and make mistakes. I love the point about an emphasis on presentation only being useful if it serves to enhance the clarity of thinking and safeguard communication. It has also made me question how we do book scrutiny without the student present. Based on what you are saying here a book scrutiny that is a conversation with the student would generate much more insight into what is going on in the classroom. I wonder about the idea of not explicit with staff about what you are looking for in a book look, I think they would find that unsettling but I take the point about the danger of being performative...
As a maths teacher, there are some basics that I need to 'teach' students about presentation for them to understand why some form of organisation is helpful to their learning. However being 'assessed' on quality of presentation is wrong.
If students are writing everything neatly then the learning cannot be stretching them enough.
Well said, David. I enjoyed reading this. I once had a headteacher that would say, "untidy book, untidy mind".
It was absolute nonsense, of course. I've seen many fantastic children with books that are a complete mess. I made it all the way to a master's degree with books that have been a terrible mess.
Neat books are just a performance. Nobody ever looks back on a workbook from a year ago as a revision resource. I would use them as a means of recall for recent learning; as a means for pupils to ask me to explain things again if needed.
You make a compelling case, and I will definitely quote you in an upcoming post on autonomy vs. agency. You can imagine that at the K-1 level, where students are going from drawing pictures with letters as labels to independent writing of complete sentences, we need a record of change over time. But your nuanced discussion of the bad and the ugly of exercise books gives pause for thought about how best to use them and assess their value.
This lands hard, especially the "I do, we do, you do" section. The thing I see constantly on social media — and I think it connects directly to what you're describing — is people sharing a few unbelievable writing samples, the kind that generate a ton of oohs and ahs because they look so polished.
More often than not, when I've dug deeper what's being celebrated is a copy of the shared piece, not an independent construction.
And that's a distinction worth sitting with, because "we do" isn't supposed to be transcription — it's supposed to be the messy, oral, collective work of building something together, again and again, until the moves become available to a child independently.
The whole value of that phase lives in the grappling, not in the artifact it produces.
When what gets shared is a polished copy, the most important instructional work — the noticing, the decision-making, the "why this word and not that one" — has usually happened invisibly, or not at all, exactly like you're describing with the model itself.
I wrote about this distinction in my book, We-Do Writing — the difference between a "we do" that's genuine shared construction (oral, iterative, revised in real time) versus a "we do" that's really much closer to an "I do" with an audience that's holding pencils.
The second version produces the samples that go viral. The first one produces writers.
I love beautiful books but you have given me much to think about. I have always wanted students to get over the fear of writing something wrong, be able to cross out and make mistakes. I love the point about an emphasis on presentation only being useful if it serves to enhance the clarity of thinking and safeguard communication. It has also made me question how we do book scrutiny without the student present. Based on what you are saying here a book scrutiny that is a conversation with the student would generate much more insight into what is going on in the classroom. I wonder about the idea of not explicit with staff about what you are looking for in a book look, I think they would find that unsettling but I take the point about the danger of being performative...
Totally agree.
As a maths teacher, there are some basics that I need to 'teach' students about presentation for them to understand why some form of organisation is helpful to their learning. However being 'assessed' on quality of presentation is wrong.
If students are writing everything neatly then the learning cannot be stretching them enough.
The way I opened this assuming it would be about Folio editions…
Well said, David. I enjoyed reading this. I once had a headteacher that would say, "untidy book, untidy mind".
It was absolute nonsense, of course. I've seen many fantastic children with books that are a complete mess. I made it all the way to a master's degree with books that have been a terrible mess.
Neat books are just a performance. Nobody ever looks back on a workbook from a year ago as a revision resource. I would use them as a means of recall for recent learning; as a means for pupils to ask me to explain things again if needed.
You make a compelling case, and I will definitely quote you in an upcoming post on autonomy vs. agency. You can imagine that at the K-1 level, where students are going from drawing pictures with letters as labels to independent writing of complete sentences, we need a record of change over time. But your nuanced discussion of the bad and the ugly of exercise books gives pause for thought about how best to use them and assess their value.