Scripted lessons - the expression sends a shiver down the spine for many teachers. The very definition of “scripted” means someone has prepared something for you to deliver and highlights the lack of autonomy you have.

And of course, if the lesson is already scripted, do you even need a real person in front of the class? Scaremongers already say scripts are the first step on the road to lessons delivered by robots. If you are dictating what a teacher can say, how they say it and when, then what on earth is the point of having a human doing it?

However, the concept of scripted lessons is more complex and more nuanced than that. At one end of the scale there are lessons that are fully scripted like a film - and these do have a part to play in certain specific areas.

But at the other end are the more common manifestations, the looser plans that plot out a clear sequence of learning, such as for times tables, other areas of maths and some areas of literacy - in fact, there is already a degree of scripting in teaching phonics.

And it’s not only in the scripts themselves that there is variation - there is also a huge amount of variation in the compulsion to use them. Some schools and multi-academy trusts say their plans must always be implemented, while others say they should be used only if a teacher is not getting the results.

Of course, the rationale for scripted lessons is very appealing: we can ensure that no child will get a bad deal in the “essentials”, as every teacher will be doing the best job possible according to available evidence.

That’s not forgetting the fact that with the lowest average age of secondary teachers among Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, you are ensuring that the knowledge and wisdom of experienced teachers is maximised. And, of course, when there is a shortage of specialist teachers, a non-specialist can easily step in.

It all makes terrific sense, and yet …

Restricting teachers’ freedom

The very basis of teaching is that children are being taught what they do not know. The very basis of formative assessment is that a teacher responds to what the children have learned and adjusts accordingly. How can that be done with the most rigid scripts?

And how does a teacher summon enthusiasm for a lesson if they have had little or no input into it? Does a script make them just a jobbing actor in someone else’s play?

The biggest fear here is that the teaching will not be the most effective. Ask a person to wear someone else’s shoes and they are going to struggle to walk properly. And, as Dylan Wiliam, emeritus professor at the UCL Institute of Education, points out, while scripted lessons may make bad teachers appear better, there is also a danger that they may make good teachers worse. “The question is,” he says, “how many of each group? And how much better or worse?”

Imposing scripted lessons on an inexperienced teacher is probably right. But imposing them on an experienced one is wrong and could be damaging.

It’s a solution to a problem, but not a solution to the problem. If, as Andreas Schleicher, director for education and skills at the OECD, reiterated this week, the biggest challenge for education in this country is not teacher pay, but to keep teaching intellectually attractive, widespread scripting of lessons is certainly not the way to do it.

We need to keep our sages on the stage, not only on the page.

@AnnMroz